When I have the opportunity to speak to young people about fishing. The question always comes up about FFS. Here is my best answer.
Forward facing sonar is useful in showing potential, as does most sonar. But it stops there for, when it is used to snipe fish example muskies. It is where ethics kicks in for me.
I really find it useful for finding weeds off of the weedline. I was amazed at how much weed growth is out there away from the major beds of weeds. It’s not easy, or sometimes impossible to see the fish in weeds. We are so used to seeing the pro’s out on a smooth reservoir but when your boat is moving it’s hard to tell a fish from a weed. Not to mention, you are moving east, the wind is from the south and you have to angle the trolling motor away from the weeds to steer. Hard to cast to the fish that way.
Plus, here in MN, we have so many fish cruising around it’s hard to tell what you have in front of you unless it’s big like a musky. But it is great for scanning for stuff like weeds, rocks and baitfish. You will most likely catch more fish with it than without. Also, keep in mind, the cone angle is pretty narrow so you have to cast straight along the cone or you don’t see your lure. Not easy in a wind or a very long cast.
I thought about my last response and it wasn’t completely thought out. I am more of a bass fisherman, and that’s how I responded but FFS for walleye and crappie is a game changer. Last year, I was up north and could see the schools of crappie and even tell how big the fish were. Same with walleyes. I found a school off of the hump out in the basin that were very catchable. Probably wouldn’t have found them without FFS.
I have a friend who lives up in walleye country and it has changed the way he keeps fish. Before, if he got on a good bite, he’d keep a limit, but now, he feels more confident that he can find fish, so he only keeps two or three for a meal. Down imaging with FFS is far better at showing the size of fish compared to forward facing but in forward mode you get to scan around so either way, you are getting info you wouldn’t get any other way.
It is funny the last 2 times on the river I have out fished my friend with ffs by double I caught 33 he caught 17 all he does is look at that screen
There are some who have mastered side imagining and 2d and do the same thing catch wise as FFS. Remember 2d/ down imaging/side imaging/and FFS all use the same signal .
FFS works without moving while down imaging/side imaging do not. Try using it on the ice sometime, doesnt work well at all.
Help Save Minnesota’s Muskies: A Legacy Worth Preserving
Historically, muskies were known as the fish of 10,000 casts, yet today muskies are now being caught in abundance using advanced fishing electronics, like Forward Facing Sonar (FFS). This is decimating our muskie population and we need your help.
MN-FISH has committed $177k to launch a groundbreaking initiative—the Leech Lake Muskie Movement and Survival Study—set to begin on May 3, 2025, in collaboration with a team from Bemidji State University and the Minnesota DNR. This pivotal research aims to provide vital insights into muskie behavior and survival, and shaping conservation strategies that will help ensure the muskie’s future for generations of anglers.
This is poised to be the most significant muskie survival study ever conducted in the United States, and we are excited for the vital contributions it will make to preserving muskies while supporting the DNR’s mission to sustainably manage Minnesota’s natural resources.
Donate Today – Your Donation will be Doubled
We invite you to join us in supporting this critical muskie study forward! A generous benefactor, Chore Warrior, will double your donation if received by May 1. So, $50 becomes $100; $100 becomes $200; $500 becomes $1000. Will you donate today?
Why This Study Matters:
The DNR needs data to show the effects from this new level of angling pressure, both in terms of mortality and in understanding how muskies use deep water habitat, where they are most vulnerable to FFS. Also, through this study, MN-FISH aims to uncover valuable insights into the behavior, growth, and survival rates of muskies in their natural habitat. By employing state-of-the-art telemetry devices, muskie movements and interactions will be closely observed. This initiative will not only strengthen survival efforts but also equip the DNR with crucial insights to refine regulations, foster effective stewardship, and optimize habitat management and muskie stocking programs.
How You Can Help:
Donate Today…Your donation will directly support this muskie study by funding state-of-the-art telemetry tracking equipment, research personnel, and essential fieldwork operations. Together, we can ensure Minnesota remains a leader in muskie conservation and responsible fishing practices.
Your Impact:
Every dollar donated by May 1 will fund this initiative. Your support reinforces MN-FISH’s mission to foster collaboration, innovation, and stewardship in the fishing community.
Please join us today in making this study a success.
Donations can be made directly through our secure link here: http://www.mn-fish.com/donate or send checks to:
MN-Fish | 125 1st Ave NW, PO Box 7, Osseo, MN 55369-9906
Together, we can ensure that muskies continue to thrive in Minnesota and inspire future generations of anglers.
Thank you for your support of MN-FISH’s mission.
About MN-FISH
MN-FISH is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Minnesota sport fishing, advancing conservation efforts, and protecting our aquatic ecosystems. Through innovative research, public engagement, and strong partnerships, MN-FISH leads the way in ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of Minnesota’s cherished fishing traditions.
Visit our website at http://www.mn-fish.com
$177K to fund a *study* on FFS and Muskie. Wonder how much that would equate to in stocking? As if I needed another reason to not join MNFish.
$177K to fund a *study* on FFS and Muskie. Wonder how much that would equate to in stocking? As if I needed another reason to not join MNFish.
I was thinking the same. However I don’t fish for Muskie and don’t really care about it.
By employing state-of-the-art telemetry devices, muskie movements and interactions will be closely observed.
If all this is made public, won’t it make the muskies more susceptible to being caught since we’ll all know where they tend to be at different times of the season/year? 
$177K to fund a *study* on FFS and Muskie. Wonder how much that would equate to in stocking? As if I needed another reason to not join MNFish.
This for sure. Plus their tax returns are public and shows them having slow traction.
Decimating the muskie population is an absolutely hilarious statement. I personally have never heard of a muskie angler keeping a muskie (not to say a fish here or there isn’t harvested). They always horse the fish in to the net as soon as possible so the stress is limited. The fish is treated like a Kobe steer by the anglers once the wrangling is completed. What a waste of money that could be used for some good, such as stocking as mentioned above.
I would say decimating musky populations might be an exaggeration but when you consider how few adult muskies there actually are in a lake and basically having the ability to identify clearly a big fish and harassing that fish until it has just had enough, yeah, someone could certainly do some damage. Regardless of how well they handle them, there are still fish that dont make it. True, muskies are essentially a C&R fish now because of the reg change, but that doesnt mean some fish dont make it after being caught.
All of these haters of advancements in technology. I sure don’t think “the old days” of musky fishing were better than today. See photo. Its not technology that is not killing muskies, it’s people killing muskies – just like they always have – only now it’s usually inadvertent versus intentional.
Nowadays, Minnesota is virtually all catch & release thanks to the trend towards ‘no kill’ and the latest size limit reg. So, most delayed mortality is inadvertent due to ‘over loving’ a musky once landed. Too much handling and too much time out of the water, especially when water temperatures peak in the summer and fish are prone to die of stress more easily.
The barotrauma argument seems like hogwash since barotrauma doesn’t become a problem until a fish is brought up from 30 feet or greater. Most musky suspended over the deep basin in early summer are no more than 8 to 15 feet deep. It’s unusual to see one at 25+ feet in my experience. Can’t say I’ve ever seen one at 30+ feet where barotrauma would become a problem. That seems like an argument against FFS that would be persuasive only to the uninformed.
IMG_6180.jpeg
Hooking mortality, Hooking Mortality. Some people like to always downplay this factor. My guess is far more fish die from it than anyone thinks. Ya ya I know. a little hooking mortality is better than a fish in a fry pan. The long and short of it is more hooked fish is more mortality to fish, so any tool that increases fish being caught is also increasing mortality. Like stated, 50’+ fish are not all that common. I’m on record that I’m not a fan of FFS, But since its legal I have nothing against those who are using them. Hard to roll back technology.
All of these haters of advancements in technology. I sure don’t think “the old days” of musky fishing were better than today. See photo. Its not technology that is not killing muskies, it’s people killing muskies – just like they always have – only now it’s usually inadvertent versus intentional.
Nowadays, Minnesota is virtually all catch & release thanks to the trend towards ‘no kill’ and the latest size limit reg. So, most delayed mortality is inadvertent due to ‘over loving’ a musky once landed. Too much handling and too much time out of the water, especially when water temperatures peak in the summer and fish are prone to die of stress more easily.
The barotrauma argument seems like hogwash since barotrauma doesn’t become a problem until a fish is brought up from 30 feet or greater. Most musky suspended over the deep basin in early summer are no more than 8 to 15 feet deep. It’s unusual to see one at 25+ feet in my experience. Can’t say I’ve ever seen one at 30+ feet where barotrauma would become a problem. That seems like an argument against FFS that would be persuasive only to the uninformed.
Totally agreed.
Hooking mortality, Hooking Mortality. Some people like to always downplay this factor.
Yeah, they are called scientists and their conclusions are drawn off of studies. Except on Mille Lacs where they want you to believe that every fish in a net dies, but that is no comparison to the amount dying by Hooking Mortality.
Lakes are called RESOURCES and it’s the Dept of Natural RESOURCES because death is a part of it, whether it’s from take, nature (late/no spawn, overabundance of this or that prey/predator etc.) or the miniscule hooking mortality. Hooking mortality is just such a small % on every lake, besides Mille Lacs, that it does not impact management.
The long and short of it is more hooked fish is more mortality to fish.
This is a rhetorical question, but since fishing essentially leads to mortality regardless of whether the fish is released or not, are you going to stop fishing and pick up scuba diving and just take pictures of two fists full of largemouths? 
It’s kind of funny because there are several here who claim the FFS guys actually catch less fish since they are staring at a screen all day and not fishing. Maybe it’s the opposite affect and less fish are being caught. 
It’s kind of funny because there are several here who claim the FFS guys actually catch less fish since they are staring at a screen all day and not fishing. Maybe it’s the opposite affect and less fish are being caught.
Great point, potentially far less stress on smaller and “teenage” fish, especially musky.
I do not like this new culture of regarding a fish as anything more than an organism with a brain the size of an acorn at best. They are a resource our license dollars go towards replenishing. It is a shame when any fish isn’t handled properly and dies. But to think the finger should now be pointed at FFS? I think gramps who nets a fish in his large nylon tangled net and takes 7 minutes to get the hook out is more of a culprit than someone using FFS.
Yeah, they are called scientists and their conclusions are drawn off of studies. Except on Mille Lacs where they want you to believe that every fish in a net dies, but that is no comparison to the amount dying by Hooking Mortality.
You show me where many studies have been done by a reliable source on hooking mortality of Caught Muskies. In my time on the water I can tell you I witnessed many Muskies being caught by both Muskie fishermen and people who catch them while fishing for other fish. I can assure you that in warmer water temp months, more than a few of those fish do not survive after release. I fish both Minnetonka and Waconia often enough and often see dead Muskies floating dead. Not many other causes of this other than Hooking mortality. Once again I’ll state FFS are fully legal to use. If you want to use them to help catch more fish, go ahead. In a few years when more and more limits are lowered and other restrictions are put in place don’t be surprised.
April 8, 2025 at 1:45 pm#2328932
fishthumper wrote:
The long and short of it is more hooked fish is more mortality to fish.This is a rhetorical question, but since fishing essentially leads to mortality regardless of whether the fish is released or not, are you going to stop fishing and pick up scuba diving and just take pictures of two fists full of largemouths
A rhetorical question back at you. Do you agree that with more fish being caught, the # of fish dying from hooking mortality is likely to increase? If so, what’s the problem with my statement? Now if you think with more fish being caught, the hooking mortality death do not also increase, then we have a different situation. I assume the primary reason one would purchase a FFS is to catch more fish, can we agree on that or do you disagree with that? If so, what do you think the primary reason is?
A rhetorical question back at you. Do you agree that with more fish being caught, the # of fish dying from hooking mortality is likely to increase? If so, what’s the problem with my statement? Now if you think with more fish being caught, the hooking mortality death do not also increase, then we have a different situation. I assume the primary reason one would purchase a FFS is to catch more fish, can we agree on that or do you disagree with that? If so, what do you think the primary reason is?
I wasnt disagreeing with what you said merely pointing out the only way we can reduce or eliminate fishing related mortality is to not allow fishing in the first place.
I wasnt disagreeing with what you said merely pointing out the only way we can reduce or eliminate fishing related mortality is to not allow fishing in the first place.
I’ll agree with you on the Eliminate part. Not the reduce part, Decreasing the # caught, would decrease the # that die.
A rhetorical question back at you. Do you agree that with more fish being caught, the # of fish dying from hooking mortality is likely to increase? If so, what’s the problem with my statement? Now if you think with more fish being caught, the hooking mortality death do not also increase, then we have a different situation. I assume the primary reason one would purchase a FFS is to catch more fish, can we agree on that or do you disagree with that? If so, what do you think the primary reason is?
Does it in fact help you catch more fish than any other tech advancement in the last 25 years? Do we know more fish are actually being caught.
I’ll agree with you on the Eliminate part. Not the reduce part, Decreasing the # caught, would decrease the # that die.
Is that what you are suggesting as a solution is to decrease the amount being caught?
You show me where many studies have been done by a reliable source on hooking mortality of Caught Muskies. In my time on the water I can tell you I witnessed many Muskies being caught by both Muskie fishermen and people who catch them while fishing for other fish. I can assure you that in warmer water temp months, more than a few of those fish do not survive after release. I fish both Minnetonka and Waconia often enough and often see dead Muskies floating dead. Not many other causes of this other than Hooking mortality.
Your post I originally responded to, compared Hooking Mortality to fish in the frying pan, so I assumed you weren’t talking muskies.
I’ve explained it to you before, and will continue to do so until you start retaining the info. Hooking Mortality is a real thing that happens. It is NOT a thing that happens so often and at such a high prevalence that it impacts fish/species biomass. Musky die from old age, choking on dinner, disease or a number of other natural causes. On top of being a difficult fish to catch, even with FFS. Which is all to say the small % of hooking mortality applied to the even smaller number of musky caught (almost all of which are released), is VERY unlikely to impact the musky biomass anywhere. I live 20 minutes away from and am on Tonka and Waconia frequently, and am yet to see a floater. So I do not believe you see floating musky’s “often” and you living in StC makes me think you don’t actually come down here “often” either.
BigWerm, I took your previous post about hooking mortality as it relates to walleyes too, not muskies.
Most hooking mortality studies with muskies involve the use of live bait. They have been extensively done in Wisconsin with big suckers minnows and the data has shown it to cause a high rate of mortality. Perhaps the use of a quick strike rig might help mitigate that, but I still see muskie anglers in the fall using suckers and non quick strike rigs. They are essentially waiting for a muskie to fully swallow a sucker before they set the hook(s) in the throat.
I don’t know of a study involving muskies and the use of FFS as it relates to overall mortality amongst released fish because this technology hasn’t really been out that long. One would have to imagine that if there are more being caught, then mortality is obviously higher. Is it high enough to the point where its detrimental to the overall population? I don’t know.
The fact remains is that there just isn’t very many adult muskies in our lakes right now because the lack of stocking has dropped significantly. That cannot be denied. Handle with care and respect the resource would be beneficial.
Typically when I read these anti-FFS posts I just bite my tongue and move past. How many of you people commenting have actually used FFS? How many of you would consider yourself proficient with it?
It’s a great tool to locate fish and even watch the fish react, but it doesn’t guarantee a bite.
I use FFS sonar for every species, but I don’t consider myself a Muskie fisherman. Last Summer I was invited to fish with a guy who guides for them all Summer. We scoped for 8-9 hours, marked 35, casted to 20-25, hooked 4, and landed one. No fish marked were deeper than 15’ down over 20-40’ of water. For you guys worried about the guys fishing over deep water, the fish aren’t on the bottom! This angler has top of the line gear so the fight is fast, the net is always ready, and when in the net they stay in the water the entire time except for a quick picture. The fish swam away just fine and I would consider the day a success. This isn’t the guy you need to be worried about killing all the fish which is probably true of most anglers that have taken the time to become proficient with FFS.
Some of you appear to have some serious FFSDS.
There have been hooking mortality studies on Muskies out of deep water so I don’t see any new revelations coming out of this study. This appears to me that the MNDNR wants to ban FFS for Muskies and they feel they need a study to justify doing so. I am guessing they will find the results they are after.
The Muskie fishing in MN had dropped off significantly prior to FFS due to the declined stocking numbers by the dnr. They weren’t putting sufficient numbers of fish in to support the big increase in the popularity of the sport. Many lakes actually saw dramatic drops in stocking numbers and the fishing tanked. That problem hasn’t changed but now everyone wants to blame it on livescope. It has divided the musky community and they have lost focus on what really matters- we need more fish. Once the dnr gets the study results they are looking for to ban FFS, don’t expect musky fishing to improve. It ain’t gonna result in Muskies that aren’t there. It is a shame this money didn’t go in to stocking. Such a waste.
Hopefully this goes better for the MNDNR than the barotrauma study they did that Weibe made them look like fools over.
FWIW I own a livescope and have for years and I have never used it for Muskies and don’t plan to.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
