longdraw said:
What everyone has to realize is that the anglers who use the highest end sonar are never looking for fish.
A fish finder isn't a fish finder. You are the fish finder.
Um, I guess I don't know squat then, because when I use my sonar, I'm ALWAYS looking for FISH! I think its called "fishing,", not "rocking," or "mudding," or "structuring." ;D I don't care too much about rocks, twigs, trees, mud, or whatever else is down on the bottom. Guess I'm a low-ender.
I want to know precisely how many fish are in my cone, whether they're my target fish, relative size, exactly where they are in the water column, if they're moving, whether they're reacting to my lure, how close they're getting to my lure, and when they're about to eat my lure. I can determine most of this with my LCX, but thought maybe this new structure scan would make it more clear. (perhaps not!)
Heck, I know where the fish are. Finding them is fairly easy. Most any decent sonar will do that. Figuring out what they're doing, thinking, and/or how they're reacting is the harder part.
If the fish are there, I don't care what type of structure it is at that moment. For later reference, yes. But as they say, "You can't catch 'em where they aint." I need to know my lure is in thier face, and to what extent, and what the fish think about it.
Thankfully, it sounds like I can hold off on the 2nd morgtage for a while! From what I've read, cost doesn't equal benefit yet for the Lowrance. Yet . . .