fishfinder for halibut

K

Kushtaka

New member
It is time for a new eyes underwater.

I fish buts in 40-300' of water, most commonly 100-200'. Salmon can be in any depth of water, but are usually in the top 100' and definitely a secondary target.

The units I am considering are:

Humminbird 899 (sidescan)
Lowrance Elite 7 (chirp)
Lowrance HDS 7 Gen2 (sidescan/structure scan w/ LSS module)
Raymarine Dragonfly (chirp)

Within my budget (lets cap it at $1000) I can get a variety of capabilities. and I am looking seriously at three different units. Downscan is available on all three, and my biggest question is whether sidescan or chirp will be more valuable for targeting halibut.

I both jig and longline (subsistence). When jigging being able to mark fish on the bottom is key, and it seems chirp does that fairly well. When setting a longline skate, being able to get a good idea of bottom structure is key, and the actual presence of fish isn't as big a deal when you set your skate. It seems to me that sidescan would be better for this.

My problem is, when I've gotten a look at units in store, demo mode is nothing but a sales pitch, so the test drives I've done have not been very informative. I really need some input from someone who has used either or both technologies to target halibut.

So the concise question I'd put to the group is, for all around detection, separation of fish from bottom, and identifying cover and structure where bait or buts are likely to be, which is more effective, chirp or sidescan, assuming I can have only one?

Is there a unit that provides it all at my price point, or give the option to add one or another later?

Open to other ideas too…
 
Kushtaka":3p4pcnzj said:
It is time for a new eyes underwater.

I fish buts in 40-300' of water, most commonly 100-200'. Salmon can be in any depth of water, but are usually in the top 100' and definitely a secondary target.

The units I am considering are:

Humminbird 899 (sidescan)
Lowrance Elite 7 (chirp)
Lowrance HDS 7 Gen2 (sidescan/structure scan w/ LSS module)
Raymarine Dragonfly (chirp)

Within my budget (lets cap it at $1000) I can get a variety of capabilities. and I am looking seriously at three different units. Downscan is available on all three, and my biggest question is whether sidescan or chirp will be more valuable for targeting halibut.

I both jig and longline (subsistence). When jigging being able to mark fish on the bottom is key, and it seems chirp does that fairly well. When setting a longline skate, being able to get a good idea of bottom structure is key, and the actual presence of fish isn't as big a deal when you set your skate. It seems to me that sidescan would be better for this.

My problem is, when I've gotten a look at units in store, demo mode is nothing but a sales pitch, so the test drives I've done have not been very informative. I really need some input from someone who has used either or both technologies to target halibut.

So the concise question I'd put to the group is, for all around detection, separation of fish from bottom, and identifying cover and structure where bait or buts are likely to be, which is more effective, chirp or sidescan, assuming I can have only one?

Is there a unit that provides it all at my price point, or give the option to add one or another later?

Open to other ideas too…
Click to expand...

Don't waste your money on the Humminbird. When I upgrade it will be back to Garmin or Lowrance. Any sonar I have used will have problems separating Halibut laying on the bottom, from the bottom. Have a good one
 
I realize that targeting halibut on the bottom is a difficult job for a sonar. Nevertheless, that's what I'm after, so...

There are new tools beyond my current sonar that will do this better than what I now have (which is pitiful). Which of these tools will be the most helpful?

Why avoid humminbird? I have an 899 at work, and it is really impressive, especially compared to the lcd nightmare that now tells me almost nothing.

Have you used a humminbird sidescan to target halibut and had poor results? Do you have any experiences you would like to share?

Sorry, I guess I'd also like to know why to pursue or avoid a particular unit, and some discussion of pros/cons for the application I have described.
 
You may want to look into chirp technology. Pricey sure, but it's what you'll need if you expect your sounder to find Hali's for you. Personally I would study your charts and look for bottom structure that will hold Hali's, like say for example steep ledges near sand flats and perhaps narrow channels with good current flow. :wink:
 
CHIRP is going to improve your discrimination at the bottom, which is what you want. The down scan may or may not help. Sidescan in salt water, you probably will not get the depth you want.

What you may want to check is the price of true CHIRP transducers: For the Dragon fly they seem to be $1300 to $1400. (There is the claim by manufacturers that the down scans are CHIRP--and in some ways they are, but not the true CHRIP which gives this great discrimination at depths.

However, Garmin xs, Dragon Fly and Lowrance HDI (Navico) have all come out with "mini CHIRP" transom mount transducers at a low price.

I would spend some time reading these two sections on CHIRP, units and transducers: (Warning they are long and technical, but have some input form manufactures reps and retailers who are using the units daily. You will get opinions on each of the units.)

http://www.thehulltruth.com/marine-elec ... ained.html

http://www.thehulltruth.com/marine-elec ... under.html

Certainly not a thing wrong with Hummingbird. They are the ones who really started the modern revolution in side scan/down scan.

I am going with Garmin 1040xs--mostly because the rest of my electronics are Garmin. I will probably go with a specific CHRIP transducer.
 
I agree with Bob re: side scan - I think at typical halibut depths, the side scan won't help much. In the salt, I think it could be very useful for rockfish hunting or perhaps for fishing for salmon near the edges of kelp beds. It's most useful in depths <100' or so.

Are you trolling for hali or anchoring? If the latter, I'd tend to agree with Dutch - eg. looking at charts to find the right kind of structure is probably more important than the sounder for halibut fishing. With a high quality scent trail (a scent bag on the anchor chain for example), the hali that you catch will be drawn in from other areas anyway. Typically, the little guys get there first and the big guys (actually gals) later. As a result, the fish you catch after 20-30 mins on anchor are from places you probably didn't see with the sounder anyway.
 
Thanks for the info so far. Just to get us back on track here, I'm really not looking for general advice on catching halibut. I'm all set there.

If sidescan is good to 100' it really could be helpful to me. There are plenty of buts 10' or shallower, and when I'm anchoring, I usually stick to those depths.

I also bounceball, and troll, drift, jig, longline, etc.

But, I'm still hoping for someone who has some time on the water with these types of sonar at these price points targeting halibut. I do understand the differences in the technologies, and the technical side of things. I use sonar at work quite frequently.

It's this one specific application and purpose I'm hoping to get some input from someone who has actually used this technology for this purpose. bonus points if you have done a side by side comparison!
 
BUT, if CHIRP can truly differentiate between a halibut just off the bottom, and the bottom, that would be a pretty awesome tool to use.
 
I may be able to help, but first I feel I must introduce myself as this will be my first post on C-Brats.
I do not currently own a C-Dory but I am on the hunt. The admiral has demanded that I sell my current boat first before picking up a new one. I have been lurking these pages for the past couple months keeping an eye on the ‘for sale’ list and getting some insight on the various models.
I live in Oak Harbor, WA and the Puget Sound is my backyard. I am very active in the recreational fishing community (VP Puget Sound Anglers - Fidalgo-San Juan Islands Chapter) and have nearly 30 years of experience with Sonar which really helps in understanding fish finders.
I look forward to participating in the C-Brats community and will have one of my own very soon!

Now on to the topic at hand; “for all around detection, separation of fish from bottom, and identifying cover and structure where bait or buts are likely to be, which is more effective, chirp or sidescan, assuming I can have only one?” and all for around $1000.
To answer this question we have to look at the limitations of each input to the fish finder. The inputs are frequency, power and processing. I’ll tackle them in order.

Frequency: Frequency plays a large part in fish finder operations. As a general rule, the higher the frequency the better the detail the fish finder will display. For example, at 50kHz I can see a bait ball but I cannot pick out the defined edges and the boundaries of the bait ball will look fuzzy. Due to wavelength 50kHz may not even see some small fish but will penetrate down 5000+ feet. At 800kHz, I can see individual fish within the bait ball and see very clear and defined boundaries of the bait ball. Due to the wavelength, 800kHz will provide near picture quality images but will suffer significant signal loss and will generally only usable to 100’ or less.

Power: Fish finder performance is tied directly to the amount of power available. Out of the box, most fish finders come with a 250w transducer which is acceptable for most applications. The base units however are capable of driving higher wattage transducers. In this case the more wattage you have the more source level you have available. The more prevalent replacement transducers are either 600w or 1000w. The more power I can get on a fish the more energy I will get back to the fish finder. For the applications you are talking about, 600w will be sufficient.

Processing: There is a difference in the way various fish finders transmit their pulses and then process the returns. The more sophisticated the transmission and processing, the better the unit will be able to display separations between individual fish and/or bottom features. So far the most sophisticated of these available to the recreational fisherman is CHIRP. CHIRP sweeps across a frequency range and then processes the returns through a match filter to be able to distinguish or separate objects that are within .3“- .1” of each other. This is where you MIGHT be able to separate a halibut from the bottom. Theoretically you can do this, but I have not been able to verify in a halibut fishing environment.


If money was no object, I would go with the Furuno or Simrad Chirp unit with a CHIRP capable 1000w transducer from Airmar in addition to a structure scan unit. Cost: $8000 - $16000
Since money does seem to be an object and limitation there are a couple options.

The cheapest advertised CHIRP unit is the Raymarine Dragonfly. This unit retails for $650 - $850 and now comes in two screen sizes, the 5” and 7”. Keep in mind, you get what you pay for. I have been in search of the specifics for this unit and have come up empty. The specifics are transmit frequency (important to ensure you do not interfere with other onboard fish finders), sweep range (necessary to determine CHIRP resolution) and power and ‘Q’ rating of the provided transducer (also necessary to determine resolution). All the other companies doing CHIRP provide this information, which begs the question, why not Raymarine?

The most affordable entry level choice given your budget would be the HDS 7 gen 2 with the Sonar Hub and matching mid-frequency CHIRP transducer (TM-150). This will cost just a little over $1000 (1500ish) and will enable you to add the LSS at a later time if you decide to. What you end up with a decent 250w Transducer for 50/200kHz Broadband Color Sonar, 95-155kHz 300w CHIRP sonar and the ability to add 455/800kHz structure scan at a later time. No frequency overlap or interference and full spectrum coverage.

To answer the last partof your question, I would go CHIRP before Sidescan.

I have just scratched the surface in terms of everything that goes into fish finder operations and interpretation. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.

Steve
Soundersolutionswa.com
 
Thanks! That's very helpful. One problem I have is that at work I get to use $16000 packages, then I get on my boat and lust. It's the problem with having a boat job: gear lust.

I can set my Furuno gear to see my fishing line. I can find halibut on the bottom with it. But at work, I'm the Admiral. On my boat, a humble captain and all purchases must be approved by the Admiral. I don't need to see my line, but I do like to see those flat fish.

I probably also fish differently than most, in that I can see my boat in the harbor from my living room, and sometimes run out and fish for 30-45 minutes when I have a little time here and there. During the peak months of fishing, I'm super busy, and so rarely get to sit on the hook and draw them in. I go out, try some spots, and go home. If I can get a detection on the bottom, I'll increase my efficiency here tremendously.

I'm happy to keep jigging this way, though. It's fun and relaxing, but I rely on these fish for winter, so I could instead get a tool to help my long lining, which is purely for stocking the freezer. I don't long line very deep. Rarely over 100' (I think I confused this issue earlier, I jig and bounceball deep, but longline pretty shallow, and sidescan would be for bottom detail to make these longline sets, then go home.

We ran out of fish last winter and my current sonar gives me depth to 240' and that's it. I know I can optimize my sonar $ to get my winter needs met. That's the goal and can happen with a rod and reel (probably chirp) or longline (probably sidescan). At my price point, which technology gives me the best chance of increasing my efficiency, compared with charts and 240' of depth data (my current toolkit).

The above info is awesome, but still hoping for some real world applications.

That said, the hds7 gen 2 lets me get one now, and add one later. A trick the Admiral might fall for!
 
I upgraded the older Garmin on my current boat with the new FURUNO FCV 627 with bottom discrimination mode last spring. I spoke with the Furuno tech that did the testing on it here in Puget Sound before I purchased it and was sold. We used it all of last season and it was spot on in distinguishing sand,mud,gravel, and rocky bottom which is enough for our needs. Works great for pinpointing individual salmon and various bait concentrations/species but lacks the bells and whistles/side scan of the newer Lowrance units.
 
Steve,
Welcome aboard. Nice explanation--and I am sure you will have more to contribute.

Interesting concept with on the boat sounder "tuning" and instruction.
 
I just re read this thread a few times and have a couple things to add.

First, THANKS! I really love this site. What a resource.

Second, I'm zeroing in. Can anyone confirm that if I purchased the Lowrance HDS Gen 2 TOUCH, that I don't need the LSS2 box to get structure scan, ONLY the structure scan transducer?

Third, I'm about to test drive the Humminbird 899 ci WITH the new 360 sonar. I'm not going n the salt though, so won't be able to try it at one lining depths, but will certainly share my experiences.

Finally, I've used garmin a lot in the past, but their down/side scan sonar (new) is a little spendier than similar models from other manufacutrers. Worth it?
 
Kushtaka":3p84gs80 said:
I just re read this thread a few times and have a couple things to add.

First, THANKS! I really love this site. What a resource.

Second, I'm zeroing in. Can anyone confirm that if I purchased the Lowrance HDS Gen 2 TOUCH, that I don't need the LSS2 box to get structure scan, ONLY the structure scan transducer?

Third, I'm about to test drive the Humminbird 899 ci WITH the new 360 sonar. I'm not going n the salt though, so won't be able to try it at one lining depths, but will certainly share my experiences.

Finally, I've used garmin a lot in the past, but their down/side scan sonar (new) is a little spendier than similar models from other manufacutrers. Worth it?
Click to expand...
Structure scan is built in on the HDS Gen 2 touch units (except for the "m" models). You need to buy the optional transducer but not the LSS2 box.
 
This is a really interesting thread. Steve from Sounder Solutions posed some great feedback. A guy on my dock has Raymarine CHIRP and is really happy with it.

On my Tomcat I have two units- A Raymarine E80 with a 1KW transducer and a Hummingbird 1197c, with Side Imagining. I LOVE the Hummingbird unit and the side imagining technology is absolutely amazing. On the first trip out of the harbor I spotted 3 different wreck, all of which looked like they were in 3D on the screen. The only drawback is that it is only good up to about 180 feet. I quite a bit of diving and hoopnetting for lobster, so it is great to use this feature to find small spots of structure.

Good Luck!

Tim
24' Tomcat
 
To me the Garmin is the easiest to use (caveat, I have not used the new RayMarine Dragonfly). Garmin support is excellent (although sometimes you get good and bad support from any of the manufactures.) I used other sounders--like Furuno, which I have always felt was the best--until recently. In the last few years, Garmin has made huge advances in their depth finders. Is it any better? I think that they are all good now, and would there is all sorts of discussion about which down scan or CHIRP unit is "best". Since Steve uses and teaches on all of the sounders, take his advice.
 
I once attended a Fish Finder Seminar by a local fishing legend, Mark Wisch, here in S. CA. He indicated that with Furuno Units is is possible to change the fish marking feature to white, and then bottom zoom. As I recall, bottom will still show up red, and the fish should be shown in white. Further, he indicated that several of the well known Halibut Fisherfolk successfully use this method to target Halibut. I have not tried it yet. However, you might give it a try.

Tight Lines,
Gratitude (Jim)
 
Kushtaka":24driw0r said:
I realize that targeting halibut on the bottom is a difficult job for a sonar. Nevertheless, that's what I'm after, so...

There are new tools beyond my current sonar that will do this better than what I now have (which is pitiful). Which of these tools will be the most helpful?

Why avoid humminbird? I have an 899 at work, and it is really impressive, especially compared to the lcd nightmare that now tells me almost nothing.

Have you used a humminbird sidescan to target halibut and had poor results? Do you have any experiences you would like to share?

Sorry, I guess I'd also like to know why to pursue or avoid a particular unit, and some discussion of pros/cons for the application I have described.
Click to expand...


I have been trying to use a 898C-SI for 3yrs now, if fresh water is all you will ever fish & less than 100 ft. then the hummingbird is ok. The down image or sidescan is not worth a shit below 100' in cook inlet saltwater, north gulf coast saltwater, resurrection bay saltwater or pws saltwater. Have fun!!
 
Gratitude,
Use your white marker for the darkest red color (the bottom). Bottom fish including halibut will show up as a slightly less red color (on 16 shade color monitor, not sure on the 8 shade) laying against the white bottom.
 
Back
Top