# Kings at 700 feet



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Has anyone read the article about Captain Mark Chmura fishing kings all the way down to 700 feet...........:yikes:

Very good article in the April/May issue of In-Fisherman....................

He is getting his downriggers re-rigged so they can hold up to 1000 feet of line.................using 24 lb weights.................geez.............

Now thats some serious hard core fishing if you ask me............700 ft. down...........wow is all I can say......I used to dread 100 ft..............but 700 or more.......wow

Read the article........................


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

Hope he's got electric riggers! :lol:

John


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Or a deck hand with arms like Popeye......:lol:

Really neat article about kings coming up from 700 feet to the surface in just minutes, feeding and then going right back down to 700 + feet deep........burp air just like lakers etc.................learn something new everyday...


----------



## mrymar (May 9, 2002)

I believe he won the Ludington tournament in less than 50 FOW last year.


----------



## BallsRdragn (Jul 21, 2005)

I cant imagine the pole would even bounce or move with a fish on at those depts.... can you imagine the bow or blowback? He must use a ice fishing camera to watch the salmon bite his lure and start realing like a champ!

Now that is BIG BALLSRDRAGN!:lol:


----------



## snaggs (Jul 20, 2005)

Lets see now...A 24# lead ball..at 18.23 in circumference,trolling at 2.2 m.p.h. using 250 # stainless cable wire, in fresh water at 39.66 degree temperature @ 700 ft. with a Great lakes current of 3.91 knots @ 700 ft...Ok here we go....24minus 18.23 divided by 2.2 multiplied by the square of 700 less 3.91 to the 4th power times 700 divided by ......Oh wait..what was the type of lure he was using. Ok..forget that...Yep the answere is..the lure was actually tracking in 52 feet of water....So much for that theory 700 feet ...My Eye...


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

WOW, I did not know that they, or for that matter any other fish could burp. I pulled up some perch once on a charter years ago when I took out the kids, all they did was swell up and darn near pop. You do learn something new every day.

Do you have a link to the article?


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Frantz said:


> WOW, I did not know that they, or for that matter any other fish could burp. I pulled up some perch once on a charter years ago when I took out the kids, all they did was swell up and darn near pop. You do learn something new every day.
> 
> Do you have a link to the article?



No link that I'm aware of as I just got the In-Fisherman issue today in the mail.............not sure where to go to even find one............

He did talk about graphing them coming up from 700 ft. to the surface in just a few short minutes..................

I'm just taking what he says at face value as I don't know if thats a stretch or not................


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

Well I am serious, not questioning it at all. My fishing knowledge runs at about a 3 on a scale of 1-10. I just remember those perch coming up and being all bloated.

I need to renew a subscription to that, I have let all my magazines lapse this last 18 months or so.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

mrymar said:


> I believe he won the Ludington tournament in less than 50 FOW last year.


Less then 20 fow!!:yikes:

Scott


----------



## UBDSLO1 (Feb 23, 2004)

When I have to go to 700ft, that's the day I quit for kings. That's deep, can you imagine the gas you burn finding 700fow? wonder what your baits look like down there, and wonder what else is down there as well. What kinda reels is he using? And what lb. test line? How many colors of core to get down that far???


----------



## bombcast (Sep 16, 2003)

According to my calculations it would take 450' of copper albrighted to 87 colors of leadcore, with a deep 6 diving plane and a 96 oz. drop weight, 533' behind a 15 # downrigger ball set 300' down. 

With a Moonshine Flounder Pounder, of course. 

I don't fish them when they're below 100'. Life's too short for that nonsense.


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

is this person depths of lake superior or his he fishing in the gulf of alaska ?


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

that would be one beer per line set........if my math is correct.......of course thats if some one else was driving the boat lol


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

No, actually he has fished and caught kings as deep as 436 feet of water OVER 700 plus. He is rerigging some kind of monster ocean reel with like a ton of line. This is in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron...........

The article gives three nice graphs of tagged salmon running depths of 700 ft back to the surface and then back down to over 700 ft in just a brief 10 minutes or so.

The article says he is or is planning on running 24 lb cannonballs............and is revamping his downriggers to hold 1000 ft. of line................

Somebody else must have seen this article..............newest In-Fisherman. Capt. Mark Chamura out of Manistee..............


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

Sounds like a interesting idea, but like many others, I'm either to lazy, or don't see the point in running that deep to catch a king that can be caught in 100 FOW or less. Heck you could catch a fish at a 100 feet and reset before that rig gets to its desired depth. Imagine if its a false release? Oh the curse words!!!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

I can't stand dealing with fish that are hooked with a full lead core out. No way in hell I'd be trying to deal with a fish in 700FOW. Imagine if it's a damn shaker or something?


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Cranking up a 24 lb ball off a manual would be an all day affair. Far as 700 foot of line out....I think I ran into some of these guys with lead and wire dipseys the last few years on Lake Michigan. I know I heard them on the radio.

Skinner 2


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

What is more interesting to me than catching the fish is what the article is actually about that being that salmon are living at far greater depths than anyone ever imagined............and doing it in far bigger groups than imagined.


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

wally-eye said:


> What is more interesting to me than catching the fish is what the article is actually about that being that salmon are living at far greater depths than anyone ever imagined............and doing it in far bigger groups than imagined.


I agree, the thought that a salmon is down that far is mindboggling.


----------



## Playin' Hooky (Aug 29, 2002)

W-E, 

I read that article yesterday and all I could think was downriggers--check...wire--check...leadcore--check...in-line boards and more cores--check...copper--check...deep-sea gear--I need a bigger boat!!

I gave a friend some back issues of I-F the other day. He'd not renewed his subscription because he wasn't certain he was getting much from it. I told him that even though my current passion has gone from warmwater to coldwater species I still liked the scientific research and reasoning for their techniques. Lo and behold...the next issue arrives to validate the point--and on salmon no less. The tracking studies on GL kings was enlightening on its own. I'd like to find the full studies, if published. The yo-yo activity of that fish over the course of a day was remarkable, though only one data point. 

Regarding the depths...600 feet is "only" 200 yards. If I think in terms of other wildlife and their movements over the course of the day, that's not that far. The difference is what we perceive as the limits of the pressure variations. If the salmon don't mind it...it really isn't an issue.

This article did shed some light on things--where did the fish that spark a late morning bite 40' down over 200'+ of water come from? Up from the bottom where you didn't mark them? I think we get stuck thinking thermoclines and horizontal planes in a vertical water column but the fish are living in and using all 3Ds!

But rather than commissioning Big Jon to make specialty riggers, running one 24# ball "downtown"--350'+ with a single rod, maybe that late morning/afternoon bite (and Chmura said NO young fish there, all mature kings) would be a nice time to SAVE some gas and drift with a 1# lead ball and a chunk of cut bait, banging bottom like the old-timers did for lake trout. The more things change, the more they stay the same....

If, as Chmura says, it would put another 5-7 big kings in the cooler during an otherwise "slow" period of a tournament day...it just might be worth a try!


----------



## Duckman1 (Oct 14, 2004)

If you can find the current and gauge how fast it is running you could bump bottom with a pump handle rig with a flasher/fly or meat. Your drift at top may not match the running current at bottom though. The tide on the ocean is more predictable. They do this style of fishing on the ocean for Salmon and Halibut.
I have read about and fished for Tuna, and they swim in a similar pattern as the Salmon in the article you talk about. Tuna swim at amazing depths like 2000'.? They swim up out of the depths to feed near the surface of the ocean. They glide all the way back down to get rest because they always need to keep moving, no air bladder. I believe some BIG salmon live way deeper than most of us are used to fishing.


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

700 feet. Thats over 200 yards. Most people can't even shoot a deer that far. Even catching them 400 feet down thats still a 125 yards or so. Thats like fishing with your leadcore on a downrigger ball.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

Theres no fish down that far!:lol::lol::yikes: I think those are big squid hes seeing!

Scott


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

It IS a good article Dan , I read most of it last night - and you know I'm not much for salmon types , but there is a certain mystique about whackin' fish waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay "downtown" and I like to fish deep , although the shallower fish seem to be most aggressive (although there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule)....
Moons ago I had a video with Babe WinkleMeYeR explaining that they got eyeballs in 600 FOW in northern Lk. Mi. in the trawler nets.
I think I need to quit taking side jobs , I'd have more time to read ABOUT fishing and even _more_ time to actually DO IT.
:evilsmile


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

sfw1960 said:


> It IS a good article Dan , I read most of it last night - and you know I'm not much for salmon types , but there is a certain mystique about whackin' fish waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay "downtown" and I like to fish deep , although the shallower fish seem to be most aggressive (although there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule)....
> Moons ago I had a video with Babe WinkleMeYeR explaining that they got eyeballs in 600 FOW in northern Lk. Mi. in the trawler nets.
> I think I need to quit taking side jobs , I'd have more time to read ABOUT fishing and even _more_ time to actually DO IT.
> :evilsmile



Yep Robert it was pretty eye opening especially the satellite tracked salmon that went from being 400 feet deep and then going up to the surface and back down to 400 feet 6 times over 6 hours..........I'm sure he wasn't alone down that deep.........

I don't see anyone fishing that deep but interesting to know where they go................

Now for all those eyes running at 80 feet down in a local lake........:lol:


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

That's WHERE they gotta be , it sure isn't in the "regular" haunts , God knows we've plied the waters a time or TWENTY trying... but if you believe the Chronicle OR Mi.Sprtsmn Mag , you'd think a guy would get a limit in 30 minutes or less...... I think I took five eyes there last year ,and the Tim that lives nearby me didn't have many good things to say about that body of water.......

:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

Sounded like Ed gone Burbot fishin' , he did......

:lol:

Big MO is thawed out.

:evilsmile


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

UBDSLO1 said:


> wonder what your baits look like down there, and wonder what else is down there as well. o


Jimmy Hoffa? :yikes:


----------



## Oakley (May 19, 2003)

I read the magazine article and wanted to note a few things. 
Althought the graphs show that the tagged salmon did run up and down the water column (amazing how fast and how often), don't be too quick to think that they are down and comming up to feed. The graphs show that when the salmon go down, they spend less time in the lower peak (deeper) than when they come up to the higher (shallower)peak. This seems to me to show that the salmon were cruising around 90 feet then running down to grab something off the bottom and comming back up to 90 or so. This would make more sense to me. This still leads to the conclusion that they are feeding on the bottom so the bottom area has actively feeding fish.The article also made a few comments about them hanging by structure which makes sense if they are going down to grab food (which would hang near structure even in the deep). 

All this is just offered IMHO.

No matter what the real answers are, the information is great to see and may help catch fish as our water change with the exotic species, water clarity, and water temps/levels.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

I went to a seminar regarding this method over the winter. Effective all year long and at all times of the day. These fish are feeding on bloater chubs. Best method is big glow flashers with meat treated with pro cure shrimp scent.
Be prepared to burn up downriggger motors.


----------



## Great Lakes Fisherman (Jan 9, 2006)

I have a member on my website who catches salmon down 250-350' in Wisconsin. He added an air fitting to his depth probe and charges it with nitrogen.


----------



## bowonly (Oct 31, 2006)

stinger63 said:


> is this person depths of lake superior or his he fishing in the gulf of Alaska ?


Great lakes fishing at 700 ft, This has to be a miss print or somebody miss ready the article. I only have 300 ft on my down riggers. I highly doubt that our fish in the great lakes can handle that kind of depth. I don't think Lake Michigan, Huron, or Erie even get that deep. Deepest I,ve been out of St.joe was 330. And that was one long haul. I've fished all over lake superior, from stander rock to Isle Royale and I don't think I've ever been in that kind of water! Hell thats more line than my reels hold.:yikes: I agree with stinger!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dedge (Sep 22, 2004)

I guess I would have to say I'm not surprised at all. I fish the "real" big lake :lol: in the softwater season and during the spring we head out and look for the "scum line" which will sometimes take you out ten miles or so. The first time out the depth finder started flashing on us because we had gone past its limit. Which was a mere 900 feet. Strange feeling being that deep. But anyway once we got back to 800 feet or so we were marking fish constantly down towards the bottom, now don't get me wrong, this was only a 200 graph, and I'm sure those were not all fish. But I'm sure some of them were. Maybe even most of them were, I don't know.

It was great article regardless.


Dan


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

bowonly said:


> Great lakes fishing at 700 ft, This has to be a miss print or somebody miss ready the article. I only have 300 ft on my down riggers. I highly doubt that our fish in the great lakes can handle that kind of depth. I don't think Lake Michigan, Huron, or Erie even get that deep. Deepest I,ve been out of St.joe was 330. And that was one long haul. I've fished all over lake superior, from stander rock to Isle Royale and I don't think I've ever been in that kind of water! Hell thats more line than my reels hold.:yikes: I agree with stinger!!!!!!!!!!!!!


 
If you have ever fished between Manistee and Frankfort you can find over 700 fow!!

Scott


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

fishinmachine2 said:


> If you have ever fished between Manistee and Frankfort you can find over 700 fow!!
> 
> Scott




and a lot more if you keep going a ways more.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

bowonly said:


> Great lakes fishing at 700 ft, This has to be a miss print or somebody miss ready the article. I only have 300 ft on my down riggers. I highly doubt that our fish in the great lakes can handle that kind of depth. I don't think Lake Michigan, Huron, or Erie even get that deep. Deepest I,ve been out of St.joe was 330. And that was one long haul. I've fished all over lake superior, from stander rock to Isle Royale and I don't think I've ever been in that kind of water! Hell thats more line than my reels hold.:yikes: I agree with stinger!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Google it up will tell the truth.

Lk. Michigan MAX DEPTH= 925 feet

Lk. Huron MAX DEPTH= 750 feet


----------



## Steelie Stomper (Aug 5, 2006)

If fish come up to the beach to find the right water temp, why would they not go down to find the same temp. During the day when the marks that were all over the graph in the morning go away, where do you think the fish go??? Capt. Mark may be crazy but he isn't stupid. He catches a ton of fish.


----------



## Fletch09 (Jun 4, 2002)

There's no doubt they go to those depths but I'm not convinced you could get them to feed with any consistency that deep. The only way I think it could be done is to slow drift them with live bait. Stagger 3 live baits at 200-400-600 and work a real slow drift with a sock.

That, of course, would require that there be enough alewives around to throw a cast net upon.


----------



## sfw1960 (Apr 7, 2002)

wally-eye said:


> Google it up will tell the truth.
> 
> Lk. Michigan MAX DEPTH= 925 feet
> 
> Lk. Huron MAX DEPTH= 750 feet


Not ONLY that , but those fish have tails & they can SWIM boYZ!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

I find this imposible to be in any great lakes at those depths I would hardly doubt that there is enough dissolved o2 to sustain fish or much else of aquatic life except maybe the quaga muscles.Your oxigen content is highest in the thermalcline during the summer and under it little to none.Now unless hes fishing the depths of the Gulf of Alaska I dont belive this to be true and the aticle is a misprint its supposed to be Kings At 70fow.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

stinger63 said:


> I find this imposible to be in any great lakes at those depths I would hardly doubt that there is enough dissolved o2 to sustain fish or much else of aquatic life except maybe the quaga muscles.Your oxigen content is highest in the thermalcline during the summer and under it little to none.Now unless hes fishing the depths of the Gulf of Alaska I dont belive this to be true and the aticle is a misprint its supposed to be Kings At 70fow.


LOL!!!! I hope alot of guys dont believe it!!:yikes:

Scott


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

> and is revamping his downriggers to hold 1000 ft. of line................


Revamping a down rigger to do that would meen hes not using anykind of standard down rigger.I dont believe there is a standard downrigger out there that will hold more than 500ft of line or one that will hold more than 15lb balls without snapping the arm off the rigger yet alone what is he using to hold the base of the rigger on the boat..Id like to see or meet this guy Id tell him to his face that hes full of it.Some people believe anything.This article is totaly ludicris.


----------



## Great Lakes Fisherman (Jan 9, 2006)

stinger63 said:


> Id like to see or meet this guy Id tell him to his face that hes full of it.Some people believe anything.This article is totaly ludicris.


Why is this so hard to believe?

I noticed a new rigger on display at the Big Jon booth at the GR Sport & RV Show. I spoke with Jon Williams about the new rigger. Their new rigger is called the Brute, and this is exactly what it is designed to do. Call Jon Williams at Big Jon and speak with him about it. 

I speak with Rob and Terry at Mistinger on a regular basis. Mark Chmura is a Prostaff for Mistinger. I knew about this long before the article came out.

Here is a post on my site about someone using their probe down to 375'.

Here is Marks website. Maybe you would like to call Mark and tell him hes full of it.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

Great Lakes Fisherman said:


> Why is this so hard to believe?
> 
> I noticed a new rigger on display at the Big Jon booth at the GR Sport & RV Show. I spoke with Jon Williams about the new rigger. Their new rigger is called the Brute, and this is exactly what it is designed to do. Call Jon Williams at Big Jon and speak with him about it.
> 
> ...


 

EXACTLY!!!! Some people just dont get it!! Some people spend more time on the computer then on the water!! But thats their problem!:lol::lol:

Scott


----------



## SPITFIRE (Feb 10, 2005)

stinger63 said:


> Revamping a down rigger to do that would meen hes not using anykind of standard down rigger.I dont believe there is a standard downrigger out there that will hold more than 500ft of line or one that will hold more than 15lb balls without snapping the arm off the rigger yet alone what is he using to hold the base of the rigger on the boat..Id like to see or meet this guy Id tell him to his face that hes full of it.Some people believe anything.This article is totaly ludicris.


I have known mark for a long time and is very honest and smart person. He has engineered his own river anchor system, so im sure he has the smarts to engineer other things he puts his mind too. He puts his soul into fishing and if you have ever had the chance to fish with him, you would see what I mean. You should take a trip with him and come back and tell us what you think .


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

> He puts his soul into fishing and if you have ever had the chance to fish with him, you would see what I mean. You should take a trip with him and come back and tell us what you think .


Well I guess so and havent seen this new brute downrigger,I`ll be honest I have seen a whole lot of down riggers either just the standard run of the mill big Johns ,walkers and Cannons that most average salmon fishermen use.
Still explain to me how any aquatic life could could sustain them selves at that pressure and lack of O2 found at those depths.I know for fact that trout need at least nothing lower than 2.5 dissolved O2 in order to live and that would be in cold water.So Im not a biologist although I have work with a few in my time on trout rearing programs in the south I would suspect a salmon would need at least that kind of minum requirement if not greater.temps at the depth would make a fish so larthargic that wouldnt eat let alone chase a moving bait.Dont believe me put a trout in 50* water in a large fish tank and slowly lower the water temp down to 37* then 33* and watch how the fishes behavior changes,I have done it so I know 1st hand.Do some reserch on lake stratification because I have and then you will find some skepticism in this article.


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

A quote taken from the other site about the camera


> Implosion is posible beyond 250'.


What do you think happens to fish at depths 3 times greater than that?:yikes::16suspect


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

stinger63 said:


> What do you think happens to fish at depths 3 times greater than that?:yikes::16suspect


Probably nothing. According to this site, chinook can be found in depths up to 350m (~1100'):yikes:

http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=244

And here is some interesting research where ocean going trawlers were catching chinook down to 400m.

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Bulletin/Bulletin No. 4/193-201Walker.pdf

Granted that this research is regarding the ocean but it does show that chinook can live at those deeper depths.


----------



## stinger63 (Nov 25, 2003)

Ok theres some interesting information on that site and I forgot that Kings in the ocean do probaly live at that depths.but I stand by the rest of my claims.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

stinger63 said:


> Still explain to me how any aquatic life could could sustain them selves at that pressure and lack of O2 found at those depths.I know for fact that trout need at least nothing lower than 2.5 dissolved O2 in order to live and that would be in cold water.So Im not a biologist although I have work with a few in my time on trout rearing programs in the south I would suspect a salmon would need at least that kind of minum requirement if not greater.temps at the depth would make a fish so larthargic that wouldnt eat let alone chase a moving bait.Dont believe me put a trout in 50* water in a large fish tank and slowly lower the water temp down to 37* then 33* and watch how the fishes behavior changes,I have done it so I know 1st hand.Do some reserch on lake stratification because I have and then you will find some skepticism in this article.


I am no expert by any means, but going to school and taking classes in Limnology and Fisheries biology I do find this interesting. 

OK, first...."do some research on lake statification"
The coldest water you will EVER find at 700 foot is about 37 degree (3.98 C) water. It is the most dense water there is. Colder than that, at it floats. 
Second, the DO content at that depth. DO at that depth in Lake Michigan won't be zero like the bottom of many inland lakes. There is little decay at those depths of Lake Mi to cause a decrease in O2. Little vegetation, little decay. Also, there is a very large turnover in Lake Mi, pretty much all winter (monomictic) as opposed to inland lakes which turn over 2x per year (dimictic). 

Also, from experience, I have caught fish below 200 foot down, not to 700, but well over 200. 

Go ahead and argue it, if you can't think outside of the box, then you will be a guy that doesn' want to learn.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Radar420 said:


> Probably nothing. According to this site, chinook can be found in depths up to 350m (~1100'):yikes:
> 
> http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=244
> 
> ...


Also, realize that in the ocean, saltwater is more dense, so those kings in salt at 400m ar under even more pressure than a king would be at 400m in fresh.


----------



## rockbass (Dec 8, 2007)

I didn't read all the threads of this topic- not sure if this was mentioned yet, but I was reading the latest copy of in-fisherman at the dr.s. there is an entire article devoted to this topic in it. pretty interesting.


----------



## Getaway (Jan 17, 2001)

I spooled my Scotty riggers with 500ft of cable and could have easily fit 1000' on them. I use 13# round cannon balls. They are rated at 12#'s but actually weigh 13.

I've caught fish consistantly on the bottom in 300ft of water off Frankfort in Lake M. Never tried deeper because at the time, I only had 300ft of cable. All hog kings.

The lures that worked well were clear type blades and meat rigs (Krystal Killer rigs made by John King).

This works, and with the right equipment, is not any extra work.

You have to watch for the "perch bite" when fishing down and dirty. The tip of the rod will pulse when a fish takes the meat. Then its up to you to get on them and start cranking by leaving the rod in the holder, crank down the drag and reel like crazy. When the fish starts to run, back the drag off slightly and have fun. They usually run to the surface and fight like hell.

This aint new stuff.....


----------

