Technology will mean in the future less quality fishing in size and numbers.
Lake trout, walleye and crappie will and already are taking a hit.

In Leech and other lakes, muskies have become particularly vulnerable from June 1 until July 4, when big females retreat to deep caverns to recoup from spawning, Craven and Landreville said. Those trophy-sized fish used to be nearly undiscoverable in their deep haunts, but anglers with forward-facing sonar gear now “sharp-shoot” or “road-hunt” them by roaming the surface, eyes on their video screens.


The technology is refined to the degree that anglers can identify which fish are worth casting, allowing them to drop baits directly in front of targets.

Craven recalled a day last summer when he guided walleye clients within sight of 25 boats atop “Paris Trench,” a well-known deep-water refuge in Leech Lake for post-spawn muskies.

“We can see the boats pile in there, and they’re sharp-shooting,” Craven said. “I found four or five floaters downwind from them.”

Chad Engels, a cabin owner on Ottertail Lake, said teams of ice fishing guides equipped with the new technology worked together this winter to pinpoint schools of crappies on Ottertail. Then they led groups of up to 10 clients onto the ice for a bang-bang harvest, he said.

“It was 100 crappies day after day by the same guides working together,” Engels said. “The lake can only take it for so long.”

On Lake of the Woods, walleye tournament anglers have deployed forward-facing sonar to target the biggest possible specimens, said Joe Henry, a professional angler and tourism official. In four tournaments last year on the big lake, the winners averaged five-fish bags weighing around 50 pounds, he said.

Landreville, who patrols Leech Lake as part of his job, said the mortality issue has become so obvious that a local coalition has launched a “Protect Leech Lake Muskies” campaign. Signs will soon be posted at all public access locations around the lake.

Over done and quality will be less

Agree. We need to slow down and rethink why we’re out there. Where we get satisfaction from.

I appreciate this well written post.

Hopefully we will see some regulations limiting the use of this technology.

Happening with all kinds of sporting. Hunting is taking a hit also.

CityFisher74: "Happening with all kinds of sporting. Hunting is taking a hit also."

I know of several infrared "deer recovery drones" that have been used to locate trophy bucks that then are "stalked" on the ground. Technology is moving fast.

Has anyone complaining actually personally used forward facing sonar?

I ask because I hear all these fantastic claims but real world use doesn’t equate.

I’ve been side by side walleye and crappie fisherman many times with them using forward facing sonar and in every case have outfished them. Crappies usually 4 to 1.

Should I be outlawed :)

Don’t get me wrong I have concerns too. But I’ve also been alive long enough to know “first hand accounts” are often exaggerated and not true. I also remember the 70’s where “The big green box” was going to kill all fishing and all remember well all of the fantastical stories similar to the OP above as well…and of course it never happened.

One of the top teams on Lake of the Woods last year had 88# of walleyes in the 2 day tourney. An average of 8.8# per fish. No forward facing sonar. In fact they won, pulling large cranks. Lost their best crank…and had to doctor other cranks with hardware store spray paint. Then boated a 10 pounder on the first attempt with the home made paint job…

T

From a friend of mine who is a fishing fanatic and very knowlegeable; Ottertail county
The MN DNR should never have allowed this technology!!!!  I have a friend whose in-law who guides.  My friend has gone out with him several times in the fall and limit out on 12-to-15-inch crappies.  I had a good crappie lake this summer and fall in Otter Tail County.  I went there this winter and the 200-acre lake was covered with auger holes. I couldn't find a fish because some guys came out with this technology, keyed on the crappies, and almost wiped them out on this lake.  Many young fishermen are going with this new tech.  In my mind it is not longer fishing, just catching.

Me talking:
I have seen the same in the Brainerd area. like most technology it is a learning curve. You now get 100 plus ice castles move onto a lake with some having his technology. They stay and fish 24 hours a day. crop the lake down and next week their buddies move to another lake.

Now technology it is expensive, but you cover a 1000 plus foot circle around your boat scanning for fish. has it is $100,000 now and it will go down. Also certain guides will be getting it and on lake trout it will be more deadly than any gillnet.

Also look back 30 years and how far things advanced, it will in time make this new gadget seem old. The fishery can't handle it. If everyone got limits the fisheries would be depleted in no time.
The fish still have a eraser size brain, their technology hasn't changed, and it still takes a walleye 5-6 years to reach 15 inch's.

DougD: "

CityFisher74: "Happening with all kinds of sporting. Hunting is taking a hit also."

I know of several infrared "deer recovery drones" that have been used to locate trophy bucks that then are "stalked" on the ground. Technology is moving fast."

.
I know they do the drones, but is it really legal?

Absolutely and now live game cameras-you might have 20 cameras and have live view of your hunting area deer movement while you sit in the woods.
Also, a lot have heated blinds on stilts now that are very fancy at times, food plots that cost mega bucks.
Yes I could go on about rifles and crossbows etc.
More and more want a quick kill.

We could talk all day on this, but people always said they go hunting and fishing to be out there with nature.

Pinetree: "From a friend of mine who is a fishing fanatic and very knowlegeable; Ottertail county
The MN DNR should never have allowed this technology!!!!  I have a friend whose in-law who guides.  My friend has gone out with him several times in the fall and limit out on 12-to-15-inch crappies.  I had a good crappie lake this summer and fall in Otter Tail County.  I went there this winter and the 200-acre lake was covered with auger holes. I couldn't find a fish because some guys came out with this technology, keyed on the crappies, and almost wiped them out on this lake.  Many young fishermen are going with this new tech.  In my mind it is not longer fishing, just catching.


Me talking:
I have seen the same in the Brainerd area. like most technology it is a learning curve. You now get 100 plus ice castles move onto a lake with some having his technology. They stay and fish 24 hours a day. crop the lake down and next week their buddies move to another lake.


Now technology it is expensive, but you cover a 1000 plus foot circle around your boat scanning for fish. has it is $100,000 now and it will go down. Also certain guides will be getting it and on lake trout it will be more deadly than any gillnet.


Also look back 30 years and how far things advanced, it will in time make this new gadget seem old. The fishery can't handle it. If everyone got limits the fisheries would be depleted in no time.
The fish still have an eraser size brain, their technology hasn't changed, and it still takes a walleye 5-6 years to reach 15 inch's."

Cmon on now, people have always drilled out lakes and used a locator to use them.

I live in Brainerd and have a place in OTC. I’d be willing to bet I know the lake you speak of and the guide service out there. They were catching fish before ffs even existed.

Those with ice castles using ffs and sitting in their shack really aren’t even using it effectively anyways.

The technology is here to stay. Legislation is trying to go through for the state limit on walleyes to be dropped with 4. Which I am fine with, but with that said the average angler isn’t catching a limit or even 4 for that matter. The last fisheries survey said if you wanted to make an impact on the fishery, the limit would have to go to 3. Meanwhile the drop to 4 is trying to go through, they are upping the limit to 5 on red lake. Go figure.

The people who were fish hogs prior to FFS are still going to be fish hogs.

Back in the day I fished Mile Lacs nearly every weekend in the summer and had a sleeper in the winter out of then Jack's Twin Bay. I knew the lake better than the locals- well I probably was one for the amount of time I was up there.

First it was Loran C that was going to "ruin" the lake - then it was GPS. The "secret" spots like "the Needle" and others out on the mud flats were now going to be found without triangulating radio towers with the naked eye.
Well- the lake got toasted but that's a different thread.

FWIW-- my son and I just invested in a FFS.
Just getting the kinks worked out- seen fish- yet to catch any yet.
It's a tool just like anything else and does not guarantee you anything other than you probably will need an better battery. 15" screen draws 5-6 amps.

timatkn: "Has anyone complaining actually personally used forward facing sonar?

I ask because I hear all these fantastic claims but real world use doesn’t equate.

I’ve been side by side walleye and crappie fisherman many times with them using forward facing sonar and in every case have out-fished them. Crappies usually 4 to 1.

Should I be outlawed? :)

Don’t get me wrong I have concerns too. But I’ve also been alive long enough to know “first hand accounts” are often exaggerated and not true. I also remember the 70’s where “The big green box” was going to kill all fishing and all remember well all of the fantastical stories similar to the OP above as well…and of course it never happened.

One of the top teams on Lake of the Woods last year had 88# of walleyes in the 2 day tourney. An average of 8.8# per fish. No forward facing sonar. In fact they won, pulling large cranks. Lost their best crank…and had to doctor other cranks with hardware store spray paint. Then boated a 10 pounder on the first attempt with the home made paint job…

T"

Do I use this technology? Yes. Since 2018.
Are the concerns related to musky fishing valid? Unfortunately yes.
I also fish Ottertail co and have seen the panfish slaughter mentioned previously.
It is hard to compare musky fishing to other species, as they exist in such low densities and really struggle to survive catch and release in a warm water post spawn situation. We have always targeted these fish in open water during this time period, but never with the efficiency that FFS can allow. Perhaps the few fish we did encounter suffered and died, but it was not enough mortality to disrupt the fishery. What they are seeing on leech will certainly disrupt that fishery and others, and it takes a decade+ to replace a large musky. I really see no way to regulate it, but I hope that the state can continue to manage high-quality fisheries in this age.

The use of live sonar has the potential to increase catchability, thus, removing the largely random element (see Lennox et al., 2017) that has historically been pervasive when angling. In essence, anglers can selectively target which fish to catch based on what they see in real time on their sonar. This was apparent at the 2024 B.A.S.S. event on the St. Lawrence River/Lake Ontario where professional angler Clark Wendlandt reflected on his experience and stated that he only casted at Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomeiu that were “at least 3 pounds” as evident from his live sonar

Like the Linder boys from than IN Fishermen use to say. Fishing is Location, Location and Location.
Meaning once you find the fish over half the battle is won.
Once you had lakes certain areas may have held a population of a species that was bypassed because they didn't know they were there. Now in short order you can caan and check out an entire lake.
You didn't spend hours trying to figure where they were or if they were even down there.
There are tournament fishermen for walleyes now, they don't even pre-fish anymore. They go around a lake the day before marking where schools of walleye are located.
Like chasing the last herd of buffalo.
Yes, like crappies it will probably have to go to 5 fish limit in much of the state. At least in the north half where growth rate is slow.

WhiteWolf: "Back in the day I fished Mile Lacs nearly every weekend in the summer and had a sleeper in the winter out of then Jack's Twin Bay. I knew the lake better than the locals- well I probably was one for the amount of time I was up there.


First it was Loran C that was going to "ruin" the lake - then it was GPS. The "secret" spots like "the Needle" and others out on the mud flats were now going to be found without triangulating radio towers with the naked eye.
Well- the lake got toasted but that's a different thread.


FWIW-- my son and I just invested in a FFS.
Just getting the kinks worked out- seen fish- yet to catch any yet.
It's a tool just like anything else and does not guarantee you anything other than you probably will need an better battery. 15" screen draws 5-6 amps.
"

Yes in the mid 1970's I had a fish house on the flats out from MYr Mar on the north end. Only house out there. We would line up from a big White pine on the north shore and another landmark on the west shore. Even than I just had a green box Lowrance and shooting thru the ice it helped finding the edge of the flats.

Would love to see them limit the tech. I don't where the line exists, but it exists somewhere and the DNR really should work to stay in front of it. Simply and continually reducing limits and increasing slots isn't the answer.

Speckled: "Would love to see them limit the tech. I don't where the line exists, but it exists somewhere and the DNR really should work to stay in front of it. Simply and continually reducing limits and increasing slots isn't the answer."

So true.

I think the first step will be to establish protected areas. There is a small lake in ottertail co that prohibits electronics and power augers. With protected areas, the impact could be studied. Ocean conservation has seen much success with protected areas and I think freshwater managers should move in that direction.

I have never and will never use electronics for fishing for a variety of reasons, so I am admittedly biased. But I'll just say this - anyone who feels like they have to catch a certain number or size of fish for it to be worthwhile is out there for the wrong reasons.

Pinetree: "

Speckled: "Would love to see them limit the tech. I don't where the line exists, but it exists somewhere and the DNR really should work to stay in front of it. Simply and continually reducing limits and increasing slots isn't the answer."

So true."

So, for those of us who are not diehard fishermen and/or don't live in MN. Why do you say that reducing limits isn't the answer?

Personally when I manage to get up to the BWCA/Quetico ect, I couldn't care less about limiting out, and honestly prefer pike to walleye to eat, so I'm something of a outlier, but what's the concern? Big fish not responding well to catch/release? People not following the rules (not that this is ever a issue of course)? Something else I'm missing...? Honestly curious here, any fish biologists out there?

Maybe ban all fish finders in the BWCA? Though I have to imagine that's a wormhole nobody wants to go down...

Barca: "

Pinetree: "

Speckled: "Would love to see them limit the tech. I don't where the line exists, but it exists somewhere and the DNR really should work to stay in front of it. Simply and continually reducing limits and increasing slots isn't the answer."

So true."

So, for those of us who are not diehard fishermen and/or don't live in MN. Why do you say that reducing limits isn't the answer?

Personally when I manage to get up to the BWCA/Quetico, etc, I couldn't care less about limiting out, and honestly prefer pike to walleye to eat, so I'm something of a outlier, but what's the concern? Big fish not responding well to catch/release? People not following the rules (not that this is ever a issue of course)? Something else I'm missing...? Honestly curious here, any fish biologists out there?

Maybe ban all fish finders in the BWCA? Though I have to imagine that's a wormhole nobody wants to go down... "

I need to correct myself some:
I think reducing limits on certain fish will help, but my point is if everyone gets more efficient, cumulatively with fishing pressure high they will still take too many fish. Limits help up to a certain point and helps at time spread the available fish to more anglers. Some limits would have to be reduced o far to make a difference. Yes I would like to see a 5 fish crappie limit in the north part of the state. But one reg does not fit all lake types.
Sounds weird, but deer hunting, fishing or like duck hunting if everyone got their limit we would be over harvesting. All these sports depend on people getting skunked or catching less than your limit.
Yes, slot limits and lower limits will be seen more often with angler efficiencies increasing.

Catch and release works at times, when fish not caught in too deep of water, or too warm of water. Also, some people like catching a 100 fish a day-well you're going to have some mortality.
Big fish I would say when water is warm, the fish being cold blooded that their metabolism increases with warmer water, their lactic acid in the body increases
if fish played too long-yes mortality increases.

I always noticed overall if I cross the artificial border between Canada and the USA from the BWCA to Quetico, the fishing improves instantly in most cases.
Why? -less fishing pressure and maybe stricter regs in Quetico.

Yes enjoy and go fishing and enjoy eating them. But changes and rules will change with the times.

A few thoughts;

Limits in MN keep decreasing and slots keep increasing. I have to believe this is a result of lower dnr survey results. This is admittedly speculation. The fact that it keeps changing would tell me that the current plan/trend of reducing limits and changing slots is not effective or followed to the end lands on 100% catch and release.

Catch and Release - also not the answer. A quick google search to refresh my memory on catch and release mortality studies found a summary of 53 different catch and release mortality studies. Lots of variables in the studies i've read over the years, but the average across the studies summarized was 18% mortality. The 100 fish days that some of us brag about on a BW trip kill way more fish than the guy that keeps a few for a meal every night. Slots and limits are pointless in this situation.

If the goal is to increase quality and quantity of fish in a particular lake - the only way I see to do it is by limiting the technology and reducing the effectiveness of anglers.

You make a lot of good points but
I know for a fact that the DNR lake survey program is active as ever statewide. They have though had fewer resurveys in the BWCA because of logistics.
Yes, quality has been decreasing in most lakes. A double whammy is that lakes are so well developed that spawning areas are being eliminated.
We the people have done a poor job of protecting habitat, much to lax zoning rules by county and violations by individual lake shore owners. Most lake shore owners tell you they want to protect habitat, but just not on their lakeshore. They all want a sand beach and big power boats coming and going.

I know I am annoyingly the devils advocate…but one of the examples listed as supposed evidence of technology affecting fishing was Mille Lacs?

Did any of you read my post about best day fishing? THat’s what fuels my doubt. People make claims…then my personal experience is different?

I have concerns, it needs to be monitored…the musky comments do make more sense to me though…I am too cheap to own FFS…but I really don’t believe most of the claims people are making.

I might try to rent one when I go Kabby this year to test it. But I am more nervous it will hurt my fishing than help it. As I said, when I talk to people it’s a limited product, you can spend so much time buried in a screen instead of fishing. Ultimately what catches fish is having your line in the water :)

T

Barca: "

Pinetree: "

Speckled: "Would love to see them limit the tech. I don't where the line exists, but it exists somewhere and the DNR really should work to stay in front of it. Simply and continually reducing limits and increasing slots isn't the answer."

So true."

So, for those of us who are not diehard fishermen and/or don't live in MN. Why do you say that reducing limits isn't the answer?

Personally when I manage to get up to the BWCA/Quetico, etc., I couldn't care less about limiting out, and honestly prefer pike to walleye to eat, so I'm something of a outlier, but what's the concern? Big fish not responding well to catch/release? People not following the rules (not that this is ever a issue of course)? Something else I'm missing...? Honestly curious here, any fish biologists out there?

Maybe ban all fish finders in the BWCA? Though I have to imagine that's a wormhole nobody wants to go down... "

The last survey was like .25 walleyes were caught per angling hour. A vast majority of anglers even with ffs are not catching a limit of walleyes each time out.

I am not against reducing limits if there is science behind it to support it. I will say that the quality bluegill initiative is not 100% effective. I can show you a half dozen lakes in each Crow wing, Todd, Cass and Becker that the overall size has gotten smaller and the lakes are stunting.

As for Mille lacs goes, I understand why they set their nets and traps in the same area year after year, but the lake is and has been changing, milfoil, crawfish, zebra mussels etc are changing fish movements. Just because the fish aren’t in that spot compared to 30 years ago, doesn’t mean the lake isn’t healthy.

A pike makes a fine meal especially when you take the Y bones out!

I can honestly I have only taken fish out of the bw once in the summer and that was a few years ago with my 83 year old grandpa on his last trip in. I sent him home with a few meals from there.

Pinetree: "You make a lot of good points but I know for a fact that the DNR lake survey program is active as ever statewide. "

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. I meant declining results, not survey count. So for a particular lake - say back in the 80's, they caught more and larger fish than they do today, so slots are adjusted or across the state they are catching fewer walleye per net, so limits are reduced.

Speckled: "

Pinetree: "You make a lot of good points but
I know for a fact that the DNR lake survey program is active as ever statewide."

Sorry - I wasn't very clear. I meant declining results, not survey count. So for a particular lake - say back in the 80's, they caught more and larger fish than they do today, so slots are adjusted or across the state they are catching fewer walleye per net, so limits are reduced."

Yes, you're correct. Size and numbers of certain fish have declined.

Last spring I met a buddy at a lake for some crappie fishing. He has FFS and I don't. It wasn't fishing, it was catching. With FFS you can track a schools movement and pinpoint where to cast. It's absolutely stupid. It takes away a lot of the skill of fishing. I can understand using it with kids you are trying to get into fishing, find the schools, catch some fish and show them how fun catching fish is. But as a grown adult, I don't like it for the reason stated above.

I'd be fine with two sets of regulations, one for using FFS and one for normal fishing, say like half the daily and possession limit.

A lot of good points here. Seems everyone or most everyone agrees increased fishing pressure from more people with more technology enabling greater catch rates will lead to greater fish mortality. I would push back a little on the idea that catch and release fishing is not an effective way to moderate human impact on fish populations, particularly in pressured waters. To be blunt, a LOT of people don't practice catch and release properly. You can see this with yanking large fish out of the water by the lower jaw, letting them flop around in a boat, holding them up for pictures forever, etc. Add barbed treble hooks, the increased incidence of swallowed hooks from live bait, and yes, C&R mortality can be significant. That can be reduced significantly by using single point barbless hooks, keeping the fish in the water, and basically not touching them any more than strictly necessary to unhook them and set them loose. I see this time and again on pressured trout rivers with single point, artificial only rivers that are either C&R by regulation or basically C&R by custom. A super quick picture of a special fish, no problem - I've done it and will do it again. It takes some self-restraint to change old habits, but respect for the resource demands it in my opinion - and yes, that includes limiting one's catch and release on pressured waters.

bombinbrian: "Last spring I met a buddy at a lake for some crappie fishing. He has FFS and I don't. It wasn't fishing, it was catching. With FFS you can track a schools movement and pinpoint where to cast. It's absolutely stupid. It takes away a lot of the skill of fishing. I can understand using it with kids you are trying to get into fishing, find the schools, catch some fish and show them how fun catching fish is. But as a grown adult, I don't like it for the reason stated above.


I'd be fine with two sets of regulations, one for using FFS and one for normal fishing, say like half the daily and possession limit. "

Not sure on how it takes away the "skill" of angling? I get it - when you cast without any help from "tech"- you just randomly casting/jigging. With SI/DI and now FFS you can pinpoint locations that show fish -- at least that is what it appears and FFS may be showing fish more and movements. I get that. But the fish have to bite in order to even have a chance in catching. You have to present you lure in the strike zone- and then all bets are off. I just see FFS as another tool that in 10-15+ years will be like other technology that has come.

WhiteWolf: "

bombinbrian: "Last spring I met a buddy at a lake for some crappie fishing. He has FFS and I don't. It wasn't fishing, it was catching. With FFS you can track a schools movement and pinpoint where to cast. It's absolutely stupid. It takes away a lot of the skill of fishing. I can understand using it with kids you are trying to get into fishing, find the schools, catch some fish and show them how fun catching fish is. But as a grown adult, I don't like it for the reason stated above.



I'd be fine with two sets of regulations, one for using FFS and one for normal fishing, say like half the daily and possession limit. "

Not sure on how it takes away the "skill" of angling? I get it - when you cast without any help from "tech"- you just randomly casting/jigging. With SI/DI and now FFS you can pinpoint locations that show fish -- at least that is what it appears and FFS may be showing fish more and movements. I get that. But the fish have to bite in order to even have a chance in catching. You have to present you lure in the strike zone- and then all bets are off. I just see FFS as another tool that in 10-15+ years will be like other technology that has come. "

Skill in understanding the current conditions (weather) and the subtleties of the lake. It doesn't take any skill in just cruising around staring at a screen. As others have pointed out - once you find the school you stay on the school. They start moving to a different area and you just chase them. Yes, you still have to catch them but having constant pressure is a MASSIVE change.

RatherbeDuffing-
good points
Yes muskie fishermen talk about chasing a individual fish for miles, until they finally decide to bite.

same with lake trout or crappies which cruise the deeper water. Once you locate them, most fish you keep bugging them will bit.
There is no hidden reservoir of fish protected from being harvested.

RatherbeDuffing: "

WhiteWolf: "

bombinbrian: "Last spring I met a buddy at a lake for some crappie fishing. He has FFS and I don't. It wasn't fishing, it was catching. With FFS you can track a schools movement and pinpoint where to cast. It's absolutely stupid. It takes away a lot of the skill of fishing. I can understand using it with kids you are trying to get into fishing, find the schools, catch some fish and show them how fun catching fish is. But as a grown adult, I don't like it for the reason stated above.



I'd be fine with two sets of regulations, one for using FFS and one for normal fishing, say like half the daily and possession limit. "

Not sure on how it takes away the "skill" of angling? I get it - when you cast without any help from "tech"- you just randomly casting/jigging. With SI/DI and now FFS you can pinpoint locations that show fish -- at least that is what it appears and FFS may be showing fish more and movements. I get that. But the fish have to bite in order to even have a chance in catching. You have to present you lure in the strike zone- and then all bets are off. I just see FFS as another tool that in 10-15+ years will be like other technology that has come. "

Skill in understanding the current conditions (weather) and the subtleties of the lake. It doesn't take any skill in just cruising around staring at a screen. As others have pointed out - once you find the school you stay on the school. They start moving to a different area and you just chase them. Yes, you still have to catch them but having constant pressure is a MASSIVE change.


"

I haven’t used FFS, but what you describe isn’t how FFS works. At least not in its current form. You cna’t cruise all over the place effectively and read the screen. You can’t always see the fish. The videos you see online are often advertisements.

Here’s my first hand experience last year. We pull up to a point. There is a guy nearby using FFS. There are trees in the water, the ground is sloping. We joke around and ask if he see’s all the fish. He replies he can’t see any but they have to be there this time of year. We start casting the banks and proceed to catch 20-30 crappies while he caught none. He put the FFS away and starting casting the banks and caught a few. The bite slowed down so we moved.


The next day, we casted the banks with crappie swim baits….we plucked out the aggressive fish, caught quite a few, ran into several people using FFS and ever saw them catch one fish. This has happened every year we go to Rathbun. It will happen this year…

I’ve repeated the same thing on Kabby, jigging and trolling walleyes. I’ve NEVER been out fished by FFS. They are always buried in a screen…they can’t see as much as advertised. You still gotta make a good cast, gotta jig correctly, still have to get in front of actively feeding fish, you can waste a whole day trying to entice an inactive fish to bite. People that catch the most fish are the ones with their line in the water the most :) You catch more fish by working the water hard and finding actively feeding fish. Fish and move, fish and move…FFS doesn’t allow that.

The best walleye limits on LOTW last year did not use FFS…

Ultimately I agree it needs to be watched and in certain applications it could be bad (there was a good first hand Musky info in the thread), but I find most of these stories outrageous. They are almost always second hand by people that already hate FFS… Everyone I know that has FFS says in certain situations it can help but others it hurts their catch for the reasons I outlined.

T

timatkn: "

RatherbeDuffing: "

WhiteWolf: "

bombinbrian: "Last spring I met a buddy at a lake for some crappie fishing. He has FFS and I don't. It wasn't fishing, it was catching. With FFS you can track a schools movement and pinpoint where to cast. It's absolutely stupid. It takes away a lot of the skill of fishing. I can understand using it with kids you are trying to get into fishing, find the schools, catch some fish and show them how fun catching fish is. But as a grown adult, I don't like it for the reason stated above.




I'd be fine with two sets of regulations, one for using FFS and one for normal fishing, say like half the daily and possession limit. "

Not sure on how it takes away the "skill" of angling? I get it - when you cast without any help from "tech"- you just randomly casting/jigging. With SI/DI and now FFS you can pinpoint locations that show fish -- at least that is what it appears and FFS may be showing fish more and movements. I get that. But the fish have to bite in order to even have a chance in catching. You have to present you lure in the strike zone- and then all bets are off. I just see FFS as another tool that in 10-15+ years will be like other technology that has come. "

Skill in understanding the current conditions (weather) and the subtleties of the lake. It doesn't take any skill in just cruising around staring at a screen. As others have pointed out - once you find the school you stay on the school. They start moving to a different area and you just chase them. Yes, you still have to catch them but having constant pressure is a MASSIVE change.



"

I haven’t used FFS, but what you describe isn’t how FFS works. At least not in its current form. You cna’t cruise all over the place effectively and read the screen.
T"

I have friends that use it and with a little bit of practice - that's pretty much exactly how it works. Once you've figured it out in a few outings, you can do exactly as Duff described.

I have seen a few comments from folks saying “it can’t be great because they have outfished someone using it.” If that’s the case, I am going to give you credit, you are probably the creme de la Creme of fishing - which makes sense given the very specific nature of this forum.

Me? I suck at fishing, but I try. Give me a multi thousand dollar fish finding unit and I am automatically an above average fisherman. You have to think of the potential scale of this.. How many hours did you spend to become as good as you are? Probably A LOT. Someone like me can buy a system and go from 25% of your ability to 75%. Yes, you are still better but it’s not a competition between you and me, it is about preserving a resource.

Friend uses this ice fishing. He is on the crappies and they move. With a Vexilar you can find them but you have to anticipate their movement and spend time drilling multiple holes trying to find them. It’s doable but it is still hard. FFS - just follow the screen…

I am in the minority opinion I do see that…

I would really like to see someone post that uses the unit consistently and compare their catch rates pre and post …it’s still a lot of “a friend”, “my uncle” “I heard from a friend of a guide” or “my uncles second cousin’s wife said” :) comments…

Are you actually consistently catching more fish? If so, How much better? What are the numbers? I mean if you are a bad fisherman and you used to catch 2 fish and now you catch 6…I mean…so? That’s statistically insignificant.

I’ve talked to professional fisherman and the results are mixed for the reasons I’ve already outlined…some have abandoned it except for certain situations. Once again second hand info so worth the same as the “my uncles, second cousin’s, wife told me comments :)”

Also I am not some fishing savant…I am pretty average or above average at best. So when I kick 10-15 FFS fisherman’s butt… what does that say? They all sucked that bad???

T

Lot of potential outcomes discussed

timatkn: "I am in the minority opinion I do see that…


I would really like to see someone post that uses the unit consistently and compare their catch rates pre and post …it’s still a lot of “a friend”, “my uncle” “I heard from a friend of a guide” or “my uncles second cousin’s wife said” :) comments…


Are you actually consistently catching more fish? If so, How much better? What are the numbers? I mean if you are a bad fisherman and you used to catch 2 fish and now you catch 6…I mean…so? That’s statistically insignificant.


I’ve talked to professional fisherman and the results are mixed for the reasons I’ve already outlined…some have abandoned it except for certain situations. Once again second hand info so worth the same as the “my uncles, second cousin’s, wife told me comments :)”


Also I am not some fishing savant…I am pretty average or above average at best. So when I kick 10-15 FFS fisherman’s butt… what does that say? They all sucked that bad???


T "

Using your example of going from 2 to 6 (tripling) my catch rate is significant when applied in scale. I know you just threw that number out there, but take crappie for example - if you find the school that can go from 2 random ones in a day to 30+ real quick.

Again, I respectfully think your way of looking at it of “my success vs theirs” is the wrong way to think of it. You kicking their butt is irrelevant, it’s not a competition between you and them.

Pinetree: " Lot of potential outcomes discussed "

The actual research quoted in this article almost says exactly what I’ve been saying repeatedly on this thread :)

There are studies that show a lower catch rate using FFS, there are studies that show no difference, There are studies that show no difference in size of fish caught. There are some that show only a small increase??? Only anecdotal evidence of being Able to target bigger fish (that’s worthless scientifically)

Here is a research quote:
“ Creel data were also used to assess influence of live sonar use on catches in both open-water and ice fisheries in Minnesota with no discernable patterns observed (N. Rydell, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Controlled experiments were conducted in two Kansas impoundments to measure effects of live sonar on catches of crappies and Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus by casual anglers and no difference was detected between live sonar users and nonusers for either species “

“ Quantitative studies investigating the impact of live sonar on catch composition to date are limited and results are mixed. Neely et al., (2023a) investigated concerns of anglers’ selectively catching the largest crappies in the population in a Kansas reservoir using a controlled experiment and found no difference among live sonar users and nonusers in sizes of crappies caught. Similarly, Zellers, (2022) reported that creel surveys in Arkansas showed no statistical difference in the sizes of Crappie harvested”

If you go into the studies that do show a difference and look at the abstracts the difference is marginal, in many cases statistically insignificant.

So are people science deniers now? Further research may prove different. I’ll give ya that, but right now at best scientific evidence in only a few studies shows a marginal difference and many show no difference.

T

RatherbeDuffing: "

timatkn: "I am in the minority opinion I do see that…


T "

Using your example of going from 2 to 6 (tripling) my catch rate is significant when applied in scale. I know you just threw that number out there, but take crappie for example - if you find the school that can go from 2 random ones in a day to 30+ real quick.


Again, I respectfully think your way of looking at it of “my success vs theirs” is the wrong way to think of it. You kicking their butt is irrelevant, it’s not a competition between you and them.


"

I’ve already said my way of looking at it isn’t really worth anything. It’s one guys personal experience. My point is…it’s worth MORE than 90% of the posts on this thread because the rest are opinion and second hand info…ever heard of the telephone game? Pinetree posted links to the early research on this…the article does a nice job of reporting all of the opinions and the second hand accounts…which are just as fantastical as many on this thread…then digs into the actual research…which doesn’t back up those claims.

T

I would be very curious how the people who use FFS would feel about drones being legalized for hunting. Imagine someone sitting in their truck and monitoring the movements of a big buck with a drone. When it starts heading toward a favorable ambush point, all they have to do is get there and shoot it. Sounds pretty unethical, right? But from what I know, there's no meaningful difference between that hypothetical scenario and how fishermen use FFS.

Just food for thought.

My observations are from people I know and seeing first hand results from people who have them. There very efficient. Yes it is a learning curve, and skill varies much.
Even the simpler ice fishing sonars like Vexlars used right improves catch 100% on many days.
If they didn't work, commercial fishermen on the ocean wouldn't use them and it is getting used by lake trout people in the great lakes. they work

NEIowapaddler: "I would be very curious how the people who use FFS would feel about drones being legalized for hunting. Imagine someone sitting in their truck and monitoring the movements of a big buck with a drone. When it starts heading toward a favorable ambush point, all they have to do is get there and shoot it. Sounds pretty unethical, right? But from what I know, there's no meaningful difference between that hypothetical scenario and how fishermen use FFS.


Just food for thought. "

I can’t believe I am the one defending FFS…it might need to be outlawed or regulated at some point, further research may show different results…but that isn’t even close to the same thing. Using drones, communication devices etc…for hunting is already illegal in most states. It’s apples to oranges comparison.

T

Pinetree: "My observations are from people I know and seeing first hand results from people who have them. There very efficient. Yes it is a learning curve, and skill varies much.
Even the simpler ice fishing sonars like Vexlars used right improves catch 100% on many days.
If they didn't work, commercial fishermen on the ocean wouldn't use them and it is getting used by lake trout people in the great lakes. they work"

So you are literally standing right next to people who are using FFS? And they out fished you? By how much…what are the exact differences? First hand account means you were right there…you saw it happen the whole time…it’s not talking about it with a bunch of old guys in the coffee shop the next day :) Hearing from a friend is a second hand account. Each time a story is passed along it grows…

The research doesn’t back up your claims either way?

T

timatkn: "

Pinetree: "My observations are from people I know and seeing first hand results from people who have them. There very efficient. Yes it is a learning curve, and skill varies much.
Even the simpler ice fishing sonars like Vexlars used right improves catch 100% on many days.
If they didn't work, commercial fishermen on the ocean wouldn't use them and it is getting used by lake trout people in the great lakes. they work"

So you are literally standing right next to people who are using FFS? And they out fished you? By how much…what are the exact differences? First hand account means you were right there…you saw it happen the whole time…it’s not talking about it with a bunch of old guys in the coffee shop the next day :) Hearing from a friend is a second hand account. Each time a story is passed along it grows…


The research doesn’t back up your claims either way?

T"

I have been in my friend’s boat using it. We drove up and down the river and we were seeing fish. He was telling me what type of fish we were more than likely seeing - we eventually stopped at the walleye..

I have been with a different friend using it ice fishing. Put us right on the crappie and stayed on the crappie.

I've been fishing for 40+ years, just got FFS last year but used it with friends for a couple years. Absolute game changer. The two biggest things are eliminating water where fish aren't, and catching more fish that are suspended. Anyone remember the old Lindner adage that 90% of the fish are in 10% of the lake? How many years was it pounded into our heads that fish relate to the bottom, fish the bottom few feet. FFS aids greatly in finding fish and once found, tells you water column and how they are reacting to your lures. My biggest walleye this winter was in 30 ft of water and caught at about 10-12 ft. Never would've seen it or caught it with a vexilar.

For those saying without FFS they outfished others that had FFS...lots of variables. How'd you find the fish, your experience vs theirs, your awareness of that body of water vs theirs, etc..

Most of the people I have experienced, personally, that have issues against FFS don't have them, due to financial reasons.

Adjustments may have to come with FFS. I'm all for the limit to 4 for walleye and I'd like to see see more lakes with minimum sizes...too many of these 12-13 inch walleyes being harvested. We may also have to re-visit some catch and release practices, as hook mortality plays a role when people are going out and catching 100's of fish fro the boat and keeping 8.

timatkn: "

NEIowapaddler: "I would be very curious how the people who use FFS would feel about drones being legalized for hunting. Imagine someone sitting in their truck and monitoring the movements of a big buck with a drone. When it starts heading toward a favorable ambush point, all they have to do is get there and shoot it. Sounds pretty unethical, right? But from what I know, there's no meaningful difference between that hypothetical scenario and how fishermen use FFS.



Just food for thought. "

I can’t believe I am the one defending FFS…it might need to be outlawed or regulated at some point, further research may show different results…but that isn’t even close to the same thing. Using drones, communication devices etc…for hunting is already illegal in most states. It’s apples to oranges comparison.


T"

The legality isn't really relevant to my question. There are some things that are illegal that I would consider ethical, and some that are legal that I wouldn't consider ethical. How is the hypothetical comparison I made "apples to oranges"? Just saying that it's not even close to the same thing isn't really a compelling counterargument.

It’s not even close because a drone goes way up in the air, it can move around while you stay stationary and check an entire field. You can see all directions. You could check miles of area…

FFS you have to have the sonar in a specific direction and angle. You can see feet in front of of you not miles. If there is a rock of tree or different variation in topography it cannot even see in front of you. You can’t sit at the boat landing and check the whole lake like you could with a drone?

Both at the same level of ethics? Seriously?

Maybe it will get outlawed at some point. I just don’t believe all of the hyperbole on this thread. I don’t believe it works as good as you make it out to be. Look at the research? The current research says the same thing? Even Pinetrees comments…once again we’re just comments. Tell me how the friend outfished you at a rate that will hurt the fishery. Give me some evidence some research …not stories.

I remember the same people crying about underwater cameras too?

Just to reiterate I don’t own FFS, I don’t use underwater cameras, I don’t plan to own either. I’ve been exposed to it a lot though and none of the fairy tales on this thread add up. I have no doubt it can be an effective addition to fishing. I’ve just been around too long to believe the hype.

T

timatkn: "

Pinetree: "My observations are from people I know and seeing first hand results from people who have them. There very efficient. Yes it is a learning curve, and skill varies much.
Even the simpler ice fishing sonars like Vexlars used right improves catch 100% on many days.
If they didn't work, commercial fishermen on the ocean wouldn't use them and it is getting used by lake trout people in the great lakes. they work"

So you are literally standing right next to people who are using FFS? And they out fished you? By how much…what are the exact differences? First hand account means you were right there…you saw it happen the whole time…it’s not talking about it with a bunch of old guys in the coffee shop the next day :) Hearing from a friend is a second hand account. Each time a story is passed along it grows…


The research doesn’t back up your claims either way?


T"

The research had mixed results and there was many whom said it did help and for some the verdict was still out. If it helps 50% of the people and the other 50% no change, that is still a big drain on the resource. Yes you can pick an choose what info you want and ignore the rest.
me no not personally, I won't fish if there is other people around,I like my solitude.
Many friends, including a very good friend a certified fisheries biologist whom worked for In Fishermen and Pros-TV stars Al and Ron Linder and bunch for over 3o plus years before semi retiring just recently. I think he is as qualified to give his opinion as anyone in the world. Gosh if the Linder's don't know, nobody does.
Linder's philosophy is Location, Location and Location. You got to get where the fish are present.
He has fished all over south and North America and has seen more technology and changes than any of us will see in a lifetime.
He said exactly that many fish populations that are already stressed this is a game changer.
Also sometimes or much of the time this is cumulative with so much technology already out there.
It doesn't take much if a lake is already at a tipping point of being over fished.
Its a learning curve on how to use it and some don't know how to take advantage of their observations when they see it.

It has to be good if many States DNR and ocean biologists are going to implement in determining fish populations and even size structure.

timatkn: "It’s not even close because a drone goes way up in the air, it can move around while you stay stationary and check an entire field. You can see all directions. You could check miles of area…


FFS you have to have the sonar in a specific direction and angle. You can see feet in front of of you not miles. If there is a rock of tree or different variation in topography it cannot even see in front of you. You can’t sit at the boat landing and check the whole lake like you could with a drone?


Both at the same level of ethics? Seriously?


Maybe it will get outlawed at some point. I just don’t believe all of the hyperbole on this thread. I don’t believe it works as good as you make it out to be. Look at the research? The current research says the same thing? Even Pinetrees comments…once again we’re just comments. Tell me how the friend outfished you at a rate that will hurt the fishery. Give me some evidence some research …not stories.


I remember the same people crying about underwater cameras too?


Just to reiterate I don’t own FFS, I don’t use underwater cameras, I don’t plan to own either. I’ve been exposed to it a lot though and none of the fairy tales on this thread add up. I have no doubt it can be an effective addition to fishing. I’ve just been around too long to believe the hype.


T


"

There are scanners now will do a 1000 foot circle around your boat,yes very expensive at $100,000 but off shoots and various models will be coming.

CoachWalleye74

You hit the nail on the head-it keeps you from fishing where they are not.

Also there talking about adding AI or artificial intelligence to future models-where does it end?

Pinetree: "

timatkn: "

Pinetree: ""

T"

The research had mixed results and there was many whom said it did help and for some the verdict was still out. If it helps 50% of the people and the other 50% no change, that is still a big drain on the resource. Yes you can pick an choose what info you want and ignore the rest.
me no not personally, I won't fish if there is other people around,I like my solitude.
Many friends, including a very good friend a certified fisheries biologist whom worked for In Fishermen and Pros-TV stars Al and Ron Linder and bunch for over 3o plus years before semi retiring just recently. I think he is as qualified to give his opinion as anyone in the world. Gosh if the Linder's don't know, nobody does.
Linder's philosophy is Location, Location and Location. You got to get where the fish are present.
He has fished all over south and North America and has seen more technology and changes than any of us will see in a lifetime.
He said exactly that many fish populations that are already stressed this is a game changer.
Also sometimes or much of the time this is cumulative with so much technology already out there.
It doesn't take much if a lake is already at a tipping point of being over fished.
Its a learning curve on how to use it and some don't know how to take advantage of their observations when they see it.


It has to be good if many States DNR and ocean biologists are going to implement in determining fish populations and even size structure."

That is NOT what the research showed. It was NOT 50% had an increase in catch and 50% didn’t. That would still be statistically significant and show a catch rate of 25% to 50% higher using FFS…The studies showed essentially a 0% change. It was simply comparing catch ratios overall and overall size of catch to all anglers or all researchers using FFS or not…there simply was no difference. You can find a few studies that showed a slight increase but those were statistically insignificant. You can find a few studies showed a decrease as well.

There was also a meta-analysis done (literally looking at EVERY study comparison) which also showed no difference. That’s not “cherry picking” stats. That’s literally looking at every study and all the statistics together. I am not sure what peer reviewed quantitative studies you looked at? None of them referenced in your link showed what you stated…

The nice thing about research is it takes out bias and personal opinion. Doesn’t matter what our opinions are or what friends say. It’s just numbers…the numbers say…at this time, there isn’t any difference. I reserve the right to change my opinion if the numbers change. They very well may. But currently there is a preponderance of research and statistics showing in the end, FFS makes little to no difference.
Here is a direct quote from one of the studies you linked to earlier.

“Results from this study suggest that the use of LIS (live imaging sonar) may influence angler perception and behavior more than the actual catch. “

If you spent thousands on this technology doesn’t it make sense you might be biased if it helps? If you can’t afford it…doesn’t it make sense you would be biased against it? That’s why we need science and statistics.

That’s where the current research is right now. Once again it may change and I’ll gladly jump on board to banning or regulating it.

T

If you're proficient with it, it puts you on the fish. Some study or interpretation of some study doesn't change that fact.

Forget FFS though - tech is advancing for fishing, all with the sole purpose of the angler catching more fish. There's a line somewhere and in my opinion the DNR needs to figure out where that is.

Speckled: "If you're proficient with it, it puts you on the fish. Some study or interpretation of some study doesn't change that fact.

Forget FFS though - tech is advancing for fishing, all with the sole purpose of the angler catching more fish. There's a line somewhere and in my opinion the DNR needs to figure out where that is. "

like deer hunting or any sport,it all comes down to location and finding your game. This cuts those hours of not fishing where they are not.
Tournament fishermen in Brainerd don't even wet a line prefishing anymore. They spend the day marking where schools are with radar and GPS FOR THE NEXT DAY.

They can also target just big fish or like a muskie tournament the guy folloed the huge muskie for a hour with radar until it bit.

I just got a 15 year old 3 x 5 inch $125.00 cheap locator and even that has doubled my catch of lake trout and crappies,they both show up on my antique locator.
If they didn't help people would quit buying them.

Some guides that fish everyday wish they would ban them because newcomers to the lake can figure where fish are present. the guide might have spent years figuring it out.
There is no safe haven.

I've got a vexilar flasher that I use for ice-fishing, and a 15 year old black and white PirahnaMax graph I use for canoe tripping. The have greatl improved my fishing success by finding fish and keeping me motivated to try different things if they are not biting.

Most of my fishing is for lake trout and walleyes, as well as stream trout in lakes.

I think that FFS is a big technological leap that gets into the "unethical" zone---especially for open-water muskies, lake trout, and panfish. The reasons have been well justified by others.

I do have experience with it on one occasion fishing with a buddy up on Namekan Lake in Voyageurs NP in September. He pulled the trigger and bought FFS for his boat, and we were able to find crappies out laterally from a 30 foot sunken island that would have taken luck and a lot of moving around to find with traditional sonar.

We caught at least a half-dozen 12-inch plus crappies in short order.

I'm not saying it wasn't fun, but I'm in the camp that says the technology needs to be restricted soon. Maybe prohibit it during certain time windows (to protect open water, post-spawn muskies) or on certain lakes (ie: inland lake trout lakes). For panfish, lower limits and size restrictions might be needed.

It's interesting when thinking about the difference between hunting and fishing. For reasons unknown to me hunting has done more in restricting the use of technology. Which I'll add I am in support of.

The use or mobile communication devices while deer hunting (cell, walkie talkie or other) is banned or unlawful. You can't use drones in the taking of game. You can't use thermal imaging equipment or even be in possession of it while taking game. There are other restrictions as well.

Yet for fishing...it's been left for the most part wide open. In fact, I'm not aware of any technology restrictions in MN for fishing.

Overharvesting of fish or game in many ways is cumulative, each and every device takes a little more out of the population until it is too much.
Also if you start over harvesting a species a less desirable species often fills the void, especially in the fish world.

Growing up, people always said they went fishing or hunting to get outdoors and away from the modern world.
Well we are bringing civilization(sic) to the outdoors.

I know you are talking in general and not necessarily about the BWCA, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a unit with this technology that is practical to go on a trip. Plus, pinetree, what is the figure of $100,000 you threw out there. That can't be what one of these units costs to put on a boat. If it is, I think we are safe from getting the BW lakes decimated by this new technology...

That said, to pass time I do watch the 4 hour Bassmaster tournament extravaganzas on tv. They were totally showing how they search for fish with this and can tell the size, how to present the bait, etc., as they say, it's a game changer. Denying that seems foolish to me. The pros sure believe in it.

I can see being against it for gamefish where people will be hoarding, the musky examples, crappies, walleyes. What can they do besides change limits.

Was reading Midwest Outdoors and a guy in a walleye tournament on Lake Erie won 2 boats because he entered 2 categories, I think overall bag weight & biggest fish.
One is worth $160,000 the 2nd $173,000. I had no idea people pay that much for a fishing boat, wow. I'm glad with my $700 Prism & Spirit 2 boats & original Pirahna locator that has worked great for many years. Don't see me investing in FSS any time soon.

Cheers, scat

The $100,000 is a far advanced over the present side scanners used on most freshwater lakes. it can see 360 degrees and out to 1000-1500 feet around a boat. At present some charters are using them for clientele in the ocean, Not here yet, but price and size will drop and technology will increase.

Just for fun I googled Humminbird and did their locator selector and checked out prices for top of the line locators that came up from dealers. Looks like units with all the bell & whistles so to speak, side imaging, go for from $1,500 to $2,600. That seems reasonable if you are a pro fisherman with a $170,000 boat. Makes me wonder how much a bass pro makes, I think they do pretty well with all the sponsorships.

Bass Pro...like alot of "pro" is very subjective. There are the absolute top tournaments and top pros - the guys on TV at times. These guys do well for themselves. Then there are alot of regional and local tournaments, with "Pro" brackets. A cousin of mine has gone "pro" and has been in/on that MN regional pro circuit for years. Anecdotally - he's in the red. He spends more on the boat, gear and electronics than he'd ever make. He doesok, winning the occasional tournament and overall is probably around avg. Depends on the day.

Makes perfect sense, the guys at the very top make the big dough like every sport. I think I remember one fisherman saying the money is good but it takes him away from his family or something like that. I can imagine it would be a stressful way to make a living, the dang fish gotta bite, and who needs stress when you are fishing!
Of course they are going to use the latest technology to gain any edge they can. I checked out the purse money for the bassmaster classic. 1st place pays $300,000 down to $3,000 for the 58th place finisher. Total payouts are close to $1,000,000. Winners in the bassmaster elite series contests earn $100,000. Not too shabby.

You don't need to have a nice sparkle glitter boat to get in on the tech.
I've spied some kayak's with multiple large screens mounted.

Watched a fisherman paddle out last year and check out some deep late summer bass spots. He was glued to the screens, paddled around three different spots for the next 45 minutes or so. Never even wet one of his many lines and then left the lake.

Seems to me to be like fishing visible spawning beds.......but all season long.