Structure By Catt 2024
Catt reply :
I've been asked to explain my approach to examining structure.
When looking at a one dimensional map or one dimensional depth finder screen it's hard for some people to convert that image into a 3 dimensional image in their brain. When I select a piece of structure I look at it from 3 directions; form, fit, & function; let me explain a little farther.
Form: what is its overall shape; quite often it differs from the map since most maps do not have the details needed to form a proper image.
Fit: how does it fit into the surrounding area? Is it isolated? Relationship to deep water? Connected to other structure?
Function: is it a feeding area, the bass's home, or a stop over place from the spawn.
A structure fishing situation consists of a structure, breaks, break lines and deep water. "Breaks" are things on the structure's bottom like stumps, rocks, weeds, logs, and bushes. A "break line" is a line or lines along the structure's bottom where there is a defined increase or decrease in depth, either sudden or gradual like the edge of a channel, hole or gully. There are other break lines, too, like a weed line wall, a brush line, where two bodies of water meet which differ in temperature, color or water current.
The angler who learns to read structure and where/how to fish it on its breaks, break lines will consistently catch bass while other fishermen who do not understand such things will struggle. As Buck Perry says "Anglers must recognize from the beginning that not all good-looking structures harbor bass. But, he explains, Never will bass be found that are not related to structure in some manner."
Hez reply :
First of all - thank you for sharing your knowledge.
My first question that comes to mind is this:
Relating to "Function" - I think I understand how to tell if it was a feeding area by signs of baitfish and such - but how would you distinguish the bass's home from a stop over place from the spawn?
If it were a place you regularly fished, I understand that - but would you be able to make that determination your first time fishing a piece of structure?
What are some of the details you look to observe?
Do Bass relate more to break lines in structure or are these used more as "routes" or "highways"?
scaleface reply :
I never heard of stumps, rocks, weeds, logs, and bushes referred to as breaks . Its always been cover to me . Makes no difference what its called as long as one does not confuse it with structure , which is often the case . Its understandable , a lot of the old pros used the two terms interchangeably creating the problem .
scbassin reply :
Catt that was a excellent post it should help many on this site.
A-Jay reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 9:24 PM, scaleface said:I never heard of stumps, rocks, weeds, logs, and bushes referred to as breaks . Its always been cover to me . Makes no difference what its called as long as one does not confuse it with structure , which is often the case . Its understandable , a lot of the old pros used the two terms interchangeably creating the problem .
If you can get a hold of one, Read Buck Perry's SpoonPlugging book -
The presentation at first appears dated but if you ingest the info, especially with regards to his ideas on structure and how bass use it, with your own waters in mind, you may find it easy to digest and quite tasty.
It's the first writing of it's kind detailing Structure that I know of and easily one of the best, IMO.
A-Jay
Catt reply :
@Hez we must understand some structure have multiple "functions" which can only be determined by repeated visits to that location during various seasons of the year.
@scaleface
Breakline: A breakline can have more than one meaning. It can be another word for a drop-off/ledge, or a point of any quick change in depth. It can also be used to describe the edge of a vegetation line. For example, a "weed break" is the area of the weed bed where the weeds meet up with open water; or, where one type of weed meets up with another. The last example happens when bottom composition changes, as different weeds prefer different types of bottom composition. In rocky impoundments, a breakline can also describe a line where rock meets mud, pea gravel, etc. In other words, the most correct definition for a breakline is "Any distinct line that is made by cover or structure which leads to an abrupt change in bottom depth, composition, or cover transition".
It has been said the Buck Perry's teachings are old & antiquated or only applies to spoon plugging, nothing can be farther from the truth!
J Francho reply :
@Catt thanks for starting this one!
lo n slo reply :
more good stuff
Mike L reply :
Maybe an over simplification, but to me there are 2 different definition's of a lake's bottom composition..
A "flat", which is understood and anything and everything within or on that "flat" is a "break"
Mike
Catt reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 11:31 PM, Mike L said:Maybe an over simplification, but to me there are 2 different definition's of a lake's bottom composition..
A "flat", which is understood and anything and everything within or on that "flat" is a "break"
Mike
Yes but we can have breaks/break lines on humps, ridges, points, ledges, ect
ww2farmer reply :
I always laugh when people who are new to my home lake, leave after struggling and claim..............."I don't know how anyone can catch fish in this structure-less weed filled fish bowl"
There's no such thing as a structure-less fish bowl.............every lake has a bank/shoreline, the surface of the water, and a bottom, it's not my fault they don't understand this.
tholmes reply :
Great post, Catt!
Mods: Can this become a sticky?
Tom
RoLo reply :
BREAK:
Abrupt Change (that's all she wrote).
Might be an abrupt change in bottom depth, plant species, bottom content, water current ~ ~
BREAKLINE
Abrupt change that is linear
Might be a submerged creek channel, edge of a weedbed, riptide, mudline, pipeline ~ ~
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the tiny brain of a fish, the common denominator in every case is "transition"
When we get too intricate or precise in our definition, we tend to depart from the fish’s world.
Roger
Catt reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 1:09 AM, tholmes said:Great post, Catt!
Mods: Can this become a sticky?
Tom
It is sort of! It's what I teach in my "So y'all want to learn Toledo Bend" & Demystifying Structure thread!
Hello RoLo! Great add! Some anglers are to busy majoring on minors!
J Francho reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 9:24 PM, scaleface said:I never heard of stumps, rocks, weeds, logs, and bushes referred to as breaks
To me, it depends on how it's being used by the bass, or how the bass are relating to it. Weeds are almost always thought of as "cover," yet, that seam where two species are adjacent would be another type of break. Muddy discharge from a brook or stream into clear water creates a break. On Lake Ontario, flat chunks of bedrock the size of a house can create a break, especially if it's split, and there's a wide crack - think road bed with a drainage ditch on the side in a flooded reservoir.
WRB reply :
This thread is called structure by Catt who has defined structure using difinations based on Buck Perry and applying those terms over a life time of bass fishing.
Without common ground and accepted terminology we can't communicate our collective experiences. Instead of looking up a word in the Websters dictionary, accept Catt's difinations if you want to see the underwater world through his minds eye.
Tom
Mike L reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 11:56 PM, Catt said:
Yes but we can have breaks/break lines on humps, ridges, points, ledges, ect
Absolutely, and breaks/break lines within a spesific break or break line. Which can hold the mother load if you find the right one at the right time.
Those are the areas best explained like finding a pattern within a pattern.. Try explaining this to a high school fishing club class, they will look at you like you had 3 heads. Then the light comes on. 
Excellent thread!!
Mike
J Francho reply :
"Find the edge, and gain an edge...."
j bab reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 8:34 PM, Catt said:not all good-looking structures harbor bass
Yes, if this were true than you could catch bass on Toledo Bend with a blindfold on!
There are more "fishy" looking coves on that lake than there are anywhere else in the world combined I swear
Hez reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 3:41 AM, j bab said:There are more "fishy" looking coves on that lake than there are anywhere else in the world combined I swear
HAHAHA - Have you been to Florida? The Harris Chain of Lakes (for example) can be explained in the same manner. EVERY PART of the lake looks "fishy"....EVERYWHERE! lol
j bab reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 3:54 AM, Hez said:
HAHAHA - Have you been to Florida? The Harris Chain of Lakes (for example) can be explained in the same manner. EVERY PART of the lake looks "fishy"....EVERYWHERE! lol
Now we just need to figure out which fishy parts to fish, seems like Catt is trying his hardest to get it into my dumb head
scaleface reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 3:41 AM, j bab said:Yes, if this were true than you could catch bass on Toledo Bend with a blindfold on!
There are more "fishy" looking coves on that lake than there are anywhere else in the world combined I swear
Are you confusing cover for structure ?
j bab reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 4:16 AM, scaleface said:Are you confusing cover for structure ?
Can't cover act as structure? 
scaleface reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 4:17 AM, j bab said:Can't cover act as structure?
My definition , no . Thats where a lot of confusion comes to play . Even some of the pros use to make that claim . Now days its widely considered that the bottom contours are structure and weeds , wood , brush ... is cover.
j bab reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 4:22 AM, scaleface said:My definition , no . Thats where a lot of confusion comes to play . Even some of the pros use to make that claim . Now days its widely considered that the bottom contours are structure and weeds , wood , brush ... is cover.
I see, cover is a "break" in the structure. Understood
scaleface reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 4:24 AM, j bab said:I see, cover is a "break" in the structure. Understood
You're complicating it . Cover would be a brushpile , standing timber , weeds ... Structure would be a point , hump channel ... A brush pile on a point would be cover on structure .
I consider rip rap and rock that provides sanctuary for fish or shade as cover , maybe others dont .
j bab reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 4:34 AM, scaleface said:You're complicating it . Cover would be a brushpile , standing timber , weeds ... Structure would be a point , hump channel ... A brush pile on a point would be cover on structure .
I consider rip rap and rock that provides sanctuary for fish or shade as cover , maybe others dont .
We're both saying the same thing, I just used the term "break" to describe it - per Catt's terminology.
YOU're complicating it now! 
Catt reply :
@j bab & @scaleface reread the definition of breaks/break lines!
I highly recommend everyone to pick up and read a copy of "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches" over the winter!
J Bab I will get in your head
Team9nine reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 6:13 AM, Catt said:
I highly recommend everyone to pick up and read a copy of "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches" over the winter!
^^THIS^^
No offense to anyone on the site or elsewhere, but the only interpretation/definition/explanation of these terms and subject that I care about, came from Buck himself and what he wrote. There's an entire book as Catt referenced above, as well as a whole study guide series, and over 100+ articles he wrote for Fishing Facts magazine to get you started that explain and define it all, what structure fishing is and what it ISN'T 
-T9
WRB reply :
Catt's and my generation learned how to read topographic evelation maps by looking at maps and dry land terrian for planning hiking and or hunting trips. You studied the map and looked at the terrian, the 2D flat map soon became a 3D interpretion visually.
Most of today's bass anglers never see visually what the sonar 2D map actually looks like underwater. Now 3D sonar maps are created from 2D technology, how accurate those interpretations are is spectculative.
Where I fish the lakes often fluctuate depths because the lakes are man made reserviors and we get to visually see what our sonar units displayed over several years. Topographical maps of the lakes prior to being made into a lake, Navonics digital sonar maps and actual sonar returns plus visually seeing underwater structure when dry all helps to get a good idea what structure bass prefer. Most anglers never get to see productive bass structure and must rely on their sonar plus touch and feel fishing experiences to understand the nuonces of structure. A picture is worth a 1,000 words is true.
Tom
slonezp reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 9:02 PM, Hez said:First of all - thank you for sharing your knowledge.
My first question that comes to mind is this:
Relating to "Function" - I think I understand how to tell if it was a feeding area by signs of baitfish and such - but how would you distinguish the bass's home from a stop over place from the spawn?
If it were a place you regularly fished, I understand that - but would you be able to make that determination your first time fishing a piece of structure?
What are some of the details you look to observe?
Do Bass relate more to break lines in structure or are these used more as "routes" or "highways"?
Fish can be found in shallow water, deep water and everywhere in between.
Fish live in the deep water relative to the particular area on the particular body of water you are fishing. Seasonal and daily migration affects the areas they will be found.
Catt reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 6:43 AM, Team9nine said:
^^THIS^^
No offense to anyone on the site or elsewhere, but the only interpretation/definition/explanation of these terms and subject that I care about, came from Buck himself and what he wrote. There's an entire book as Catt referenced above, as well as a whole study guide series, and over 100+ articles he wrote for Fishing Facts magazine to get you started that explain and define it all, what structure fishing is and what it ISN'T
-T9
Buck Perry is mandatory reading for every student I teach including my 10 yr old grandson.
Knowing what structure is, how to truly identify it, read it, and then fish it effectively, is the quickest, surest means of consistently putting fish in the boat.
Next would be understanding the predominant prey species in your body of water & how they relate to structure morning, noon, night & with each passing season.
scaleface reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 6:13 AM, Catt said:@j bab & @scaleface reread the definition of breaks/break lines!
I highly recommend everyone to pick up and read a copy of "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches" over the winter!
J Bab I will get in your head
I understand your definition of breaks and breaklines . I just dont call a fence row a break . I refer to it as cover .
Catt reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 9:35 AM, scaleface said:I understand your definition of breaks and breaklines . I just dont call a fence row a break . I refer to it as cover .
What does a fence row cover?
A grass flat is cover but the outer edge where the grass thins out to nothing is a breakline. The "wall" which is where the grass is growing g up near the surface is a breakline.
As bass move along a structure they pause or stop at "things"; breaks and break lines on the bottom. It is at such breaks that anglers can expect to make consistent contact with fish as they migrate along structure. This is why a certain stump or flooded tree, dock piling or submerged rock consistently produces bass for anglers. Most of the time such a spot is merely a break or bass stopping point on structure.
"hamma" reply :
I have NOT read the book, I know, I know shame on me. When I find a copy I will own it, and read it. It was, after all, written by the record holding Buck Perry. And I for one really enjoy big bass tuggin my string.
But I do have a question, and it does entail a man made reservoirs bass, my interpretation of their movements, and prey species.
First, allow me to explain the setup.
The reservoir in question is Quabbin, the first of its kind, its the largest body of water in my home state. Damming up the Swift River created Quabbin, and offered it a very large abundance of fish species. Its said that you can most likely find the next freshwater state record of any species the state offers, within its extremely clear, varying depths. And I for one have no doubt, other than the states largemouth record. Lets face it, a largemouth up here over 15 lbs isnt anywhere one can fish in this state. Quabbin is exceptional, but the biodiversity of its make up doesnt have all its takes to produce such a pig here. Its a different water type that may. I digress.
My question is,... Does Buck discuss the effects of weather and the suns influence in relation to structures positioning in his book? And I mean (to clarify) say theres a L shaped hump on a map, and it appears that the top of the "L" points north and the bottom points east. (just as a L appears), and another "L" hump closeby top points west, and bottom pointing north
For I have noticed that in Quabbins very clear waters this does make a huge difference as to how bass relate to structure, and available prey species.
basseditor reply :
It's threads like this that all anglers should read. No matter how seasoned we may be, it's nice to know the fundamentals and use them everyday. Sometimes I over complicate my fishing. Thanks Catt.
Catt reply :
We have to understand structure is structure; a hump is a hump, a ridge is a ridge, a point is a point, ect. Structure on Toledo Bend is the same as it is on Qabbins; it doesn't change.
Weather, water, & sky conditions can change daily, hourly, & even within minutes!
Once we establish what structures, break/breaklines, & covers hold fish we adjust for changes in conditions.
Changes in conditions give us a clue as to where the bass "should be"!
Are they buried up at home (dog days of summer & dead of winter), or are they moving (fall feed up for winter or pre-spawn).
Buck Perry is the Father of Structure Fishing & the building block on which we should establish a basic structure fishing understanding.
Catt reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 9:58 PM, basseditor said:It's threads like this that all anglers should read. No matter how seasoned we may be, it's nice to know the fundamentals and use them everyday. Sometimes I over complicate my fishing. Thanks Catt.
It is said we are as good as the "best" anglers we hang around with.
That is where we learn basics!
I hang around some pretty good ones here!
WRB reply :
I am not a Buck Perry deciple and missed his structure fishing seminars, articles and books. I met Buck Perry back in 1968 at a Fred Hall show where he was promoting his lures and how to catch lunkers pamphlet. Spoon plugs being a trolling lure and his pamphlet was on how to troll the various sizes of Spoon plugs that looked a lot like a metal flatfish. Buck Perry was a charming salesman and knowledgeable fisherman but didn't mention structure fishing, his interest was selling his lures.
Missed opertunity.
Ray Scott was promoting his B.A.S.S. and had Bill Dance, John Murray and they were doing seminars that everyone was going going to at that time.
I put the pieces of the structure puzzle together on my own and see Buck Perry as a pioneer in structure fishing. As things turned out Carl Lawrance and his green box helped me more than Buck Perry.
Tom
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 1:43 AM, WRB said:As things turned out
Carl Lawrance and his green box helped me more than Buck Perry.
Tom
That Green Box helped Buck Perry out quite a bit too, and vice-versa. I seem to remember that Carl Lowrance and Buck Perry had a working relationship early on.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 2:56 AM, Paul Roberts said:That Green Box helped Buck Perry out quite a bit too, and vice-versa. I seem to remember that Carl Lowrance and Buck Perry had a working relationship early on.
They had a friendly relationship, but not a direct working one. Buck has stated that he made his first depthfinder shortly after World War II, one of the "needle" locators. He even sold his own units through his company for a while. Carl Lowrance began work on the first portable/affordable "flasher" units back in 1956, and had a working model by 1957. Lowrance and Perry didn't officially meet in person until 1960 in Minneapolis. Buck later went to MO where Lowrance was headquarted, and Lowrance to Florida to fish with Buck several times, but they were just friends.
Carl built his first units to find fish, especially white bass, crappie and channel cats, and also took regular trips to Canada for lake trout. Buck was actually "opposed" to the concept of "fish finders," as he believed it was the bottom of the lake and the changes thereof that dictated the locations of fish, which is why the "needle units" were all Buck needed, and that wise anglers didn't go out into open water and randomly "look for fish" while ignoring everything else. Buck himself rarely ever used flashers, especially during those early years, but many of his friends and even some of his instructors did.
-T9
Catt reply :
Lost control of this one 
I've often wondered what someone like Buck could have done with side scan & down imaging!
"hamma" reply :
Not to continue the hijacking of this thread, but,... Radar and sonar were both a military invention first. Much like most of todays technologies come from NASA
I often wonder where the fishing world would be if todays technologies were available back then, finders, four strokes, boat hulls, composites, etc. Now that Im thinking of it,........
We owe it to our following generations, to educate, and preserve what we have now. The understanding and execution of proper structure interpretation, is a key element for any bass angler no matter where they fish. The availability of today's technologies along with that interpretation, "could" be a devastating and detrimental entity within our community. (I said, "could") Proper harvest and creels will need to be adhered to, much like a deer hunter ensuring a proper deer harvest. Providing a healthy environment for the quarry in mind. We as bass anglers,.. I'm pretty sure,.. already practice catch and release, and replica's of PB's already a well established industry. Are essential elements to the insurance of future angling adventures. And I for one applaud the industries diligent efforts.
You may be thinking "What's this got to do with learning about structure fishing" I'll tell you, the shallow waters are pretty much well defined for bass anglers, it's the deep water game, that many struggle with. The advent and available deeper water imaging will now open up a new door for us, understanding of the deeper water game will now act as a welcome mat for anglers to either tread lightly, or not. Proper management of fisheries will need to be paramount as the deeper waters are now, not so deep anymore.
I understand that many state agencies already have a excellent grasp on management of fisheries, its the ones that dont that Im concerned for. Up here?, its more the trout fishery that receives the attention as a portion of licensing goes to hatcheries, and rightfully so. To facilitate hatcheries isnt free, and im sure this is why some southern state agencies, service bass, and so on, maybe mid northern states, walleye and musky. My state has become better at bass anglers concerns, and does facilitate what they can.
Catt,... your knowledge of structure and interpretation of such is an exceptional occupation. The understanding of Bucks teachings, and application of them, a valuable tool for any and all to be a consistent and successful bass angler. I respect the heck outa you,.. and would love the chance to fish with you at some point in time. (same as some others here) I just need you to know, I'm not attempting to be "rainin on ya parade", or disrespecting you in any way, shape, or form.
I was given my nickname as Im one that has the ability to see the forest thru the tree's. I (typically) "nail it" whatever "it" may be. You all can probably be sitting there sayin,...'He's outa his tree",. or "He's got a point there",. or "Another marathon post, c'mon!",. nonetheless, whichever it may be? Be assured,..I care about this sport,.. I love it, and if I see something I need to be concerned with? I'm gunna voice it.
This is something my grandfather taught me back in the 60's, and I believe there was a reason for such. He taught me to guard, and protect what you love, for if you don't, you will loose it. In my younger years, I neglected this, and payed for it, dearly, and have ever since. Nowadays, I look for what could pain me so, and guard it like my rottwieler protects the household,...lol,...(and he's got some choppers on him, nobody messes with Spike),...get it? Hamma, Spike,...
I wish grampy was still alive so I could take him fishing,...BTW? Being a governent employed electrician, he wired the first radar and sonar for the governments military services, but "loved" to fish. kinda ironic
On 1/1/2017 at 8:01 PM, "hamma" said:Not to continue the hijacking of this thread, but,... Radar and sonar were both a military invention first. Much like most of todays technologies come from NASA
I often wonder where the fishing world would be if todays technologies were available back then, finders, four strokes, boat hulls, composites, etc. Now that Im thinking of it,........
We owe it to our following generations, to educate, and preserve what we have now. The understanding and execution of proper structure interpretation, is a key element for any bass angler no matter where they fish. The availability of today's technologies along with that interpretation, "could" be a devastating and detrimental entity within our community. (I said, "could") Proper harvest and creels will need to be adhered to, much like a deer hunter ensuring a proper deer harvest. Providing a healthy environment for the quarry in mind. We as bass anglers,.. I'm pretty sure,.. already practice catch and release, and replica's of PB's already a well established industry. Are essential elements to the insurance of future angling adventures. And I for one applaud the industries diligent efforts.
You may be thinking "What's this got to do with learning about structure fishing" I'll tell you, the shallow waters are pretty much well defined for bass anglers, it's the deep water game, that many struggle with. The advent and available deeper water imaging will now open up a new door for us, understanding of the deeper water game will now act as a welcome mat for anglers to either tread lightly, or not. Proper management of fisheries will need to be paramount as the deeper waters are now, not so deep anymore.
I understand that many state agencies already have a excellent grasp on management of fisheries, its the ones that dont that Im concerned for. Up here?, its more the trout fishery that receives the attention as a portion of licensing goes to hatcheries, and rightfully so. To facilitate hatcheries isnt free, and im sure this is why some southern state agencies, service bass, and so on, maybe mid northern states, walleye and musky. My state has become better at bass anglers concerns, and does facilitate what they can.
Catt,... your knowledge of structure and interpretation of such is an exceptional occupation. The understanding of Bucks teachings, and application of them, a valuable tool for any and all to be a consistent and successful bass angler. I respect the heck outa you,.. and would love the chance to fish with you at some point in time. (same as some others here) I just need you to know, I'm not attempting to be "rainin on ya parade", or disrespecting you in any way, shape, or form.
I was given my nickname as Im one that has the ability to see the forest thru the tree's. I (typically) "nail it" whatever "it" may be. You all can probably be sitting there sayin,...'He's outa his tree",. or "He's got a point there",. or "Another marathon post, c'mon!",. nonetheless, whichever it may be? Be assured,..I care about this sport,.. I love it, and if I see something I need to be concerned with? I'm gunna voice it.
This is something my grandfather taught me back in the 60's, and I believe there was a reason for such. He taught me to guard, and protect what you love, for if you don't, you will loose it. In my younger years, I neglected this, and payed for it, dearly, and have ever since. Nowadays, I look for what could pain me so, and guard it like my rottwieler protects the household,...lol,...(and he's got some choppers on him, nobody messes with Spike),...get it? Hamma, Spike,...
I wish grampy was still alive so I could take him fishing,...BTW? Being a governent employed electrician, he wired the first radar and sonar for the governments military services, but "loved" to fish. kinda ironic
pic of spike before he "filled out",...would you mess with that dog?
Sam reply :
Great post, Catt.
Now, about cover..................................
Catt reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 9:15 PM, Sam said:Great post, Catt.
Now, about cover..................................
Start it!
@"hamma" I'm just a simple Cajun who was blessed with being around some of the best fishermen & hunters in America.
I kinda chuckle I hear someone saying they are self taught, we are all influenced daily by those we hang around with!
whitwolf reply :
This thread Illustrates why BassResource Is not only a great place to learn but also the gracious manner with which communication Is exhibited! Well done y'all!
Catt, thanks for this! I'm 55 years young and seem to always learn something or see something that makes me think. What a great place!
BassnChris reply :
On 12/31/2016 at 6:13 AM, Catt said:
I highly recommend everyone to pick up and read a copy of "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches" over the winter!
I just oust ordered Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches on Amazon.
Late Christmas gift to my self.
Thanks for the post Catt.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 1:20 PM, Catt said:Lost control of this one
Apologies - I told myself the minute I saw this thread I wouldn't reply, and I did manage to hold off until it had progressed onto page 2
Catt reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 12:20 AM, Team9nine said:
Apologies - I told myself the minute I saw this thread I wouldn't reply, and I did manage to hold off until it had progressed onto page 2
Your opinion on structure fishing are greatly appreciated by me if no one else!
On 1/2/2017 at 12:20 AM, Team9nine said:
Apologies - I told myself the minute I saw this thread I wouldn't reply, and I did manage to hold off until it had progressed onto page 2
Your opinion on structure fishing are greatly appreciated by me if no one else!
"hamma" reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 9:39 PM, Catt said:@"hamma" I'm just a simple Cajun who was blessed with being around some of the best fishermen & hunters in America.
I kinda chuckle I hear someone saying they are self taught, we are all influenced daily by those we hang around with!
I dont see you as simple, you had the wherewithall, to first buy the book, then read and apply its teachings, to a point that it appears to be mainstay with you... Not the actions of a "simple" man, dedicated yeah, but not simple imho.
Self taught? I more or less transitioned what I read in magazines to work up here. Back then? when I was "learning" I hung around with the snakes, turtles, and neverending mosquito's, whilst fishing from my canoe in the boggs of Middleton. Maybe the critters of the swamp influenced me some towards the effects of deet, and the gunlaws of Massachusetts,..as I wish I had a little automatic .22 for them dang snakes that would make a run down the oar as you pushed off a log.
WRB reply :
Bass behavior doesn't change in a few decades, they do adapt to their changing environment.
If I had studied Buck Perry it would saved me from reinventing the wheel or learning the hard way what was already availble. This thread should be about sharing our collective knowledge to help improve our collective skills, know one knows everything about structure fishing.
I look forward to reading more input and will share what I have learned regarding deep Rocky structure lakes. Reading Bill Murphys book In Pursuit of Giant Bass cover the type types of lakes where I fish. Like Buck Perry, Bill message ins't in his lure or bait presentation, it's bass behavior and how they relate to thier environment that is the message.
Happy New Years,
Tom
riverbasser reply :
I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
WRB reply :
I breakdown structure based on where bass should be located at the time I am fishing. Before launching my boat I know what the weather is and what seasonal period it should be. What I need to determine is water temps, depth the bait is at so I can determine where the bass should be located. Depth is very important to me. Depth helps to eliminate a lot of terrain.
If there is a thermocline I don't waste time looking much deeper for example. If I meter baitfish or see them this helps to establish the life zone or depth the baitfish are using. If I meter or see bass and they are at a similar depth the baitfish, then I know what depth zone to focus my efforts at. It's a process of eliminating unproductive water before starting to determine where to start.
Structure elements located in the life zone depth of active bass is where I want to start. If I know of locations that meet my requirements that is where I go to. If I need to look at a map to refresh my memory then I look for multiple structure elements at the depth I plan to fish, more features the better because don't need to waste time moving around.
My short list of structure features are sharp changes in depth and contour like multiple points close together, long major points, secondary points, isolated boulders, humps (underwater islands), saddles between higher raised structure, all close to deeper water and any river or creek bed that has a defined countour.
Tom
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
I would look at a cut or drain leading into a flat or any multiple point feature that is at the right depth or the depth bass and bait are located at. Sometimes points and cuts are located underwater along a straight nothing looking bank, that is why sonar and maps are important.
Tom
Catt reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
Bass must have a visible path of breaks and break lines on a structure from deep water all the way to the shallows; which is where the bulk of food is available to bass.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 4:55 AM, Catt said:
Bass must have a visible path of breaks and break lines on a structure from deep water all the way to the shallows; which is where the bulk of food is available to bass.
Still something I have trouble visualizing. Wish I could go diving in my local lake to get a real picture in my head of what I see on maps and imaging.
WRB reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 4:59 AM, riverbasser said:Still something I have trouble visualizing. Wish I could go diving in my local lake to get a real picture in my head of what I see on maps and imaging.
Bass can and do travel long distances across open deep water to relocate or to feed on baitfish like Shad and trout. Several tracking studies confirm bass making several mile journeys stopping mid lake at underwater (humps) islands for short and long time periods.
We can tell ourselves the bass are following baitfish, they can't see down below them into 300' of water. There is a lot we don't know about bass.
The flip side of this is bass follow physical structure breaks, weed lines or thermo breaks that funnel into feeding zones on a regular routine.
Tom
MFBAB reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
Guts, Drains, etc...
I think you are referring to FUNNEL POINTS, which is basically a structure that looks like an inverted funnel, which is a GREAT place for bass to corral baitfish during feeding!!
Google John Hope, author of Tracking Trophies. He coined this term and offers some other useful insights pertaining to structure fishing.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
Hard to say for certain what you are talking about specifically without a picture or example to see, but my first thought is what you are referring to isn't actually "structure," at least as defined by Buck - which goes back to an earlier point I made about knowing what structure really is, and isn't. It sounds more like a break or breakline to me. This is also why nomenclature and definitions can start murkying the waters when we all talk from a personal perspective and not from an agreed upon set of definitions.
-T9
MFBAB reply :
On 1/1/2017 at 1:20 PM, Catt said:I've often wondered what someone like Buck could have done with side scan & down imaging!
I think we both know. He'd have saved COUNTLESS hours of dragging Spoonplugs around to map out the lakes he fished, but...
He would have still caught the same fish on the same structure situations he located with the Spoonplugs, just probably more, and faster
Thanks for starting this one Catt. I hate how these threads immediately devolve into a discussion about BP though, I want to talk about bass fishing!!
One thing about STRUCTURE and its LOCATION, to me it's just like deer hunting.
You can look at a Topo map of your deer woods and find funnels/ridges/saddles/structure galore, but the ones that are productive are the ones that connect the dots, like a funnel b/w a CURRENT food source and a bedding area, or b/w a buck bedding area and a doe bedding area or food source, etc.
These can change as the seasons/food sources change, and fishing seems to work the same way.
I think a lot of people look at the maps and sonar, go to a great looking spot, and don't catch them, then get discouraged because they maybe fished it at the wrong time.
I guess my point is, some nice looking structures just aren't productive at all, or aren't productive at all times during a given year.
What are you're thoughts on this? Of course I've read BP and many other variations on the theme, but we've got Catt on the hook here so let's get class in session
riverbasser reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 6:44 AM, MFBAB said:
I think we both know. He'd have saved COUNTLESS hours of dragging Spoonplugs around to map out the lakes he fished, but...
He would have still caught the same fish on the same structure situations he located with the Spoonplugs, just probably more, and faster
Thanks for starting this one Catt. I hate how these threads immediately devolve into a discussion about BP though, I want to talk about bass fishing!!
One thing about STRUCTURE and its LOCATION, to me it's just like deer hunting.
You can look at a Topo map of your deer woods and find funnels/ridges/saddles/structure galore, but the ones that are productive are the ones that connect the dots, like a funnel b/w a CURRENT food source and a bedding area, or b/w a buck bedding area and a doe bedding area or food source, etc.
These can change as the seasons/food sources change, and fishing seems to work the same way.
I think a lot of people look at the maps and sonar, go to a great looking spot, and don't catch them, then get discouraged because they maybe fished it at the wrong time.
I guess my point is, some nice looking structures just aren't productive at all, or aren't productive at all times during a given year.
What are you're thoughts on this? Of course I've read BP and many other variations on the theme, but we've got Catt on the hook here so let's get class in session
I agree with all of what you said and I too like to think of it like hunting. but IMO I don't think any of this could be learned in a general way other than how you just listed it. The only way to be specific at all is to be taught on the water with someone who knew which structure held bait or what cover was on the structure at the given time of year.
Basically what I'm realizing is that no one can teach what must be learned on my particular body of water unless they fish it regularly. All one can do is compare their water to yours or give a general answer based on what's known of bass behavior. I want to add that this info might be priceless in the learning process but only a grounding or beginning to unlocking the secrets of your/my home water.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:20 AM, WRB said:Like Buck Perry, Bill message ins't in his lure or bait presentation, it's bass behavior and how they relate to thier environment that is the message.
Bingo! At least for me. This is taking an understanding of structure deeper. This is the functional aspect Catt mentions, and I've discussed here in threads past.
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
Sounds like an "inside turn" on a breakline to me.
An "irregularity", even within a flat can produce bass, provided the flat simply holds prey. If there is adequate food present, some bass are likely to find it.
On 1/2/2017 at 4:55 AM, Catt said:
Bass must have a visible path of breaks and break lines on a structure from deep water all the way to the shallows; which is where the bulk of food is available to bass.
On 1/2/2017 at 4:59 AM, riverbasser said:Still something I have trouble visualizing. Wish I could go diving in my local lake to get a real picture in my head of what I see on maps and imaging.
On the small waters I fish I can often either see what's going on through the surface (clear water and high vantages) or, of late, I've been shooting underwater video. Here's one description:
From a high bank above a rapid drop-off at the end of a major point, I spotted several bass in about 4fow. They were hunting bluegills in sparse brush just off the steep shoreline. When they became aware of me they got nervous and moved ahead -to a single small piece of brush where they stopped to observe me -shifting to security mode. I moved ahead and they moved to the next piece. I moved ahead and they dropped deeper, to a deeper piece of brush, where they stopped, bunched up. I moved again, and they dropped deeper still, and out of sight. I returned a half hour later and they were back to the shallower bush, coming back into hunting mode. If I'd waited they would have gone back to hunting the shallow 'gills in near-shore cover.
This description covers two birds here: behavior/function, and what it looks like.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 9:05 AM, Paul Roberts said:
This description covers two birds here: behavior/function, and what it looks like.
Very cool. Wish I could have seen it.
Jeff H reply :
On 12/30/2016 at 11:57 PM, ww2farmer said:
There's no such thing as a structure-less fish bowl.............
I see them for sale in the pet stores....
Catt reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 4:59 AM, riverbasser said:Still something I have trouble visualizing. Wish I could go diving in my local lake to get a real picture in my head of what I see on maps and imaging.
That where map study & hours on the water helps.
What helps me is to visualize is layers; structure (bottom contour), on top of that water (depth), & cover (grass, wood, brush, rock).
Example: Many of the best structures in a lake or river will have large fertile weed beds on them that harbor an abundance of minnows, crayfish and other bass forage. A weed bed a long distance from deep water with no "structure" linking the two will not be as productive as the weed bed on a structure having breaks and break lines near the deepest water in the area.
Example: Points are very productive structures but one with a creek/river channel close by will always get my attention before one that doesn't!
Even though bass will cross what appears to be long distances over open water when biologist looked closer the structure was below.
RoLo reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:37 AM, riverbasser said:I have a random question that goes along with this thread. While doing map study I see a lot of "female points" my term. Basically a flat away from the shore with an inward point or what would of been considered a cove before it was flooded. Why are these pieces of structure not talked about? I have caught fish on them and it meets alot of the qualities you would look for like: a drop off, shallow with deep water nearby,and an irregularity within the flat. Any thoughts on this?
What you refer to as a 'female point' is an indentation in contour lines, commonly called an inside turn.
To be sure, "major points" are widely touted and universally loved, but nothing stokes my interest
more than a sharp INDENT in bottom contour, the sharper the better.
The existence of a major point is typically betrayed by shoreline configuration. As a result, major points
are worked to death by anglers. But more than this, a 'point' is a geometric shape that acts as a wedge
which tends to diverge the traffic flow of predator & prey. On the contrary, an "inside turn"
(indentation in depth lines) tends to converge the traffic pattern, thereby enhancing 'population density'.
Roger
Catt reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 6:44 AM, MFBAB said:One thing about STRUCTURE and its LOCATION, to me it's just like deer hunting.
You can look at a Topo map of your deer woods and find funnels/ridges/saddles/structure galore, but the ones that are productive are the ones that connect the dots, like a funnel b/w a CURRENT food source and a bedding area, or b/w a buck bedding area and a doe bedding area or food source, etc.
These can change as the seasons/food sources change, and fishing seems to work the same way.
I think a lot of people look at the maps and sonar, go to a great looking spot, and don't catch them, then get discouraged because they maybe fished it at the wrong time.
I guess my point is, some nice looking structures just aren't productive at all, or aren't productive at all times during a given year.
What are you're thoughts on this? Of course I've read BP and many other variations on the theme, but we've got Catt on the hook here so let's get class in session
Bass fishing & deer hunting?
Both can be harvested in one of three ways
1. Find their homes; usually located on prime structure & in prime cover, both are setup on structure & in cover that allows them to see all directions at once. Maybe not 360 but it'll be as close as they feel comfortable.
2. Find their feeding areas; multiple areas that have sufficient food to last the present season.
3. Find the trails to & from those areas; both travel structure in a way that allows them to see while remaining unseen.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 10:42 AM, RoLo said:
What you refer to as a 'female point' is an indentation in contour lines, commonly called an inside turn.
To be sure, "major points" are widely touted and universally loved, but nothing stokes my interest
more than a sharp INDENT in bottom contour, the sharper the better.
The existence of a major point is typically betrayed by shoreline configuration. As a result, major points
are worked to death by anglers. But more than this, a 'point' is a geometric shape that acts as a wedge
which tends to diverge the traffic flow of predator & prey. On the contrary, an "inside turn"
(indentation in depth lines) tends to converge the traffic pattern, thereby enhancing 'population density'.
Roger
That makes a lot of sense.
Catt reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 10:42 AM, RoLo said:
What you refer to as a 'female point' is an indentation in contour lines, commonly called an inside turn.
To be sure, "major points" are widely touted and universally loved, but nothing stokes my interest
more than a sharp INDENT in bottom contour, the sharper the better.
The existence of a major point is typically betrayed by shoreline configuration. As a result, major points
are worked to death by anglers. But more than this, a 'point' is a geometric shape that acts as a wedge
which tends to diverge the traffic flow of predator & prey. On the contrary, an "inside turn"
(indentation in depth lines) tends to converge the traffic pattern, thereby enhancing 'population density'.
Roger
Roger this is the perfect place to add a quote from our old friend George Welcome!
In its pure form, structure is defined as relating to those permanent topographical differences within a body of water. Things that are temporary differences such as docks, trees, and grasses are considered as cover.
A point whether main or secondary, humps, canals, underwater levees, and ridges are all structure.
However, there are times when a temporary difference will relate to your fishing experience exactly as structure will. A solid grass line that presents a wall is a good example.
Both structure and cover present excellent locations for bass. Cover that relates to structure is even better in most instances.
There are many theories about why fish spend time in and around cover, but more than likely the most accurate would be because their prey uses that cover to hide in.
Why fish relate to structure is a bit more complicated. Water moves as a unit so the volume moving is constant. As the flow meets a restriction to its flow, the movement accelerates to accomodate the the volume. So for example, as flow meets a hump in the water it will accelerate over that hump as the volume moving cannot change. This increase speed of flow brings with it an easier flow of food as the accelerated flow disturbs the floating food chain. The increase in the flow of diatoms as an example bring the baitfish which in turn attracts the bass.
An excellent way to observe this is to study a weir. As the water flows toward the weir no current is obvious, however at it nears the weir the current increases and is visible. As the water flows over the weir the current increases dramatically.
How this all relates to fishing besides of course location, is the selection of bait. One fishing structure would do better to use faster moving baits than one fishing cover. A bait that will appear to being tossed about by the current would be another excellent choice which is why the Carolina rig is a highly preferred bait of choice on structure. Remember that the current increases in speed passing over the structure so look to the lee side of the structure for the most activity.
Another interesting note to this is water flow in itself can emulate structure. Looking at a simulation: we will assume a inflow of water coming from the west and a wind generating current to the south. Where might be an excellent location to find some fish in this situation?
MFBAB reply :
Another way to help visualize how fish will relate to structure is by watching the wind. Go out on a windy day and look at how the wind hits various objects.
If you just walk around your house, you will see that if you stand in front of the house with the wind blowing in your face, there will be some areas where it is stronger or weaker, water currents work the same way.
The fish will get on the edge of the current, but usually not right in it unless they can find an obstruction.
The sides of the house will tend to block the wind, but if you move very far from the sides, you'll feel the wind at full force. If it's fall, you will actually see leaves gathering in these little "eddy" spots along the side of the house, those are the type of places fish like to hold in! Obviously, there will be a rather large slack area behind the house as well, but the most active fish will usually be closer to the current edge. Look at the top of the roof on the back side of the house where the wind is coming over it with the slack right behind the high spot of the roof, that is where you will find that feeding edge, not at ground level! So the sweet spot on the front edge is low, but the sweet spot on the back edge is high.
This analogy applies to current mostly, but the idea of those edges can also be applied to slackwater too, just look for shade edges or other types of breaklines and then look for the cover or irregularites along them, and always be trying to find the ones that connect to deeper water in a logical way.
Here's another analogy:
Take a football field, the whole thing is marked out, end zones, sidelines, yardage markers, everything is laid out and everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing.
The concept of structure, and why it's important to your fishing is that to the fish, the structure in a lake is as clear as the markings on a football field are to us. They all naturally relate to the contours and structures, breaks, break-lines, etc. in the lake. They are almost NEVER just hanging around without relating to some type of structure, it's just not how they are wired.
Understanding structure isn't like a magic bullet that will instantly make you an expert fisherman, but if you invest the time to learn about it, it will probably become the bedrock of your fishing strategy.
In other words, even though all lakes are different, once you begin to grasp the structure concept, you can zoom in on the likely holding areas and migration routes that may be in play at any given time. Also, you will begin to develop a better understanding of why the fish you caught on a given spot at a given time may have been there to begin with, and this will allow you to start constructing your patterns much faster!
That's it in a nutshell to me. You've still got to understand seasonal patterns, weather influences (fronts, wind, clouds, rain, light penetration), water color, food sources, is current present?,and more....But if you at least get educated about the playing field (structure), you will always have a foundation to build all of these other elements on.
IMO, there isn't a faster or easier way to get that education than by reading BP's Spoonplugging book. It won't change your catch rate overnight, but it will change your mindset about fishing overnight
scaleface reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 4:55 AM, Catt said:
Bass must have a visible path of breaks and break lines on a structure from deep water all the way to the shallows; which is where the bulk of food is available to bass.
This is very true on my home lake , a flood control reservoir . Structure like a hump that has no route to the shallows , will rarely have bass . The bass just dont have time to find it and habituate it before the next muddy water flood hits . These places will still hold crappie , white bass and channel cats . Bass can be caught deep but there has to be that route for then to relate too .
Now on another smaller lake I fish often , there doesnt have to be that route . The water "never" fluctuates more than a couple of feet and if there is good structure or cover bass will find it without a path to the shallows .
riverbasser reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:06 PM, Catt said:Where might be an excellent location to find some fish in this situation?
The north side?
Raul reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 6:44 AM, MFBAB said:
I think we both know. He'd have saved COUNTLESS hours of dragging Spoonplugs around to map out the lakes he fished, but...
He would have still caught the same fish on the same structure situations he located with the Spoonplugs, just probably more, and faster
Thanks for starting this one Catt. I hate how these threads immediately devolve into a discussion about BP though, I want to talk about bass fishing!!
One thing about STRUCTURE and its LOCATION, to me it's just like deer hunting.
You can look at a Topo map of your deer woods and find funnels/ridges/saddles/structure galore, but the ones that are productive are the ones that connect the dots, like a funnel b/w a CURRENT food source and a bedding area, or b/w a buck bedding area and a doe bedding area or food source, etc.
These can change as the seasons/food sources change, and fishing seems to work the same way.
I think a lot of people look at the maps and sonar, go to a great looking spot, and don't catch them, then get discouraged because they maybe fished it at the wrong time.
I guess my point is, some nice looking structures just aren't productive at all, or aren't productive at all times during a given year.
What are you're thoughts on this? Of course I've read BP and many other variations on the theme, but we've got Catt on the hook here so let's get class in session
"Bassy looking" doesn't mean bassy holding. Some of the best spots in my everyday lake are far from being bassy looking.
WRB reply :
There is a point in time when we all stop buying the state of the sonar units, I reached that point. I know the smaller lakes where I fish and no longer need sonar to locate underwater structure, baitfish, bass depth and how those fish are positioned on the structure is how I use my sonar today.
How Buck Perry may have ultized a modern scanning sonar with GPS would depend on need and his age. If he was fishing multiple larger size lakes then state of the art sonar would be a advantage over studying maps and dead recogning your off shore location.
Buck Perry did have flashers and paper graphs during his time fishing, don't know if he ultized those, I did during the 60's and 70's.
Without the aid of maps the lake shoreline and terrain is all anyone has to determine near shore structure, off shore structure is a lot of unproductive water. What bass anglers did prior to utilizing sonar was trolled deep diving lures hour after hour to run across bass and learned where to troll from experience, they called trolling alleys. Topographical and sounding depth maps date back over 100 years, so maps were availble, usually 5' to 10' elevations and not very detailed and few bass anglers used them. I collected lake depth or topo maps for every lake I fished 40 years before sonar GPS became available.
Today more bass anglers fish off shore structure since Sonar GPS maps became popular, still only about 20% of bass anglers, that means 80% still stay within a casting distance from shore.
This topic targets the 20% of bass anglers interested in structure fishing.
Tom
MFBAB reply :
WRB,
I can't say whether BP used any type of sonar, I think team9 said he may have made a needle type depth gauge.
As I understand it, BP trolled his spoonplugs around to map out the lakes, he made various sizes that were designed to run at certain depths.
He would troll them fast, like probably 5-8 mph in a little v-hull with a 5-10 horse motor.
He had no gps or si, but he could learn the lake bottom with his spoonplugs, and maybe in some cases with topo maps as an aid.
Also, he was using the spoonplugs as a school locator, he would stop and cast when he got a bite or two on a spot, it wasn't just trolling by any means.
Another lesson from BP is how good of a trigger speed can be at times, he was triggering inactive bass in many instances by banging those spoonplugs into structure at fairly high speeds!
I guess my point about what he would have done w modern sonar was that he would have a detailed topo map and gps, so with his knowledge of structure, he would be able to find the structures he used to have to troll spoonplugs for hours to find....in seconds on a map.
He'd have caught more, and faster today
Team9nine reply :
Buck was "old school." Keep in mind he didn't pass away until 2005, and fished pretty regularly up until the final few years before his passing. Still, at least on his own boat (or boats he'd rent - very frequent), originally he only used his own needle unit. I've posted a pic below (top), poor quality and all. In his later years, he did have a modern flasher on board, but he only rarely used it, mostly just for checking stuff. Note in the second picture the flasher isn't even mounted - it's just laying on the deck He much preferred to put one of his lures downstairs to learn all he needed to learn that way. He also wasn't a fan of LORAN/GPS. Didn't believe they were accurate enough when compared to line sights. He did use maps to see what he could and mark general areas, but beyond that, he made his own detailed maps (hand drawn) of the exact areas once he fished them thoroughly with his lures. Mapping is another very important aspect of Spoonplugging.
Here's a few words from Buck on the subject:
Quote"There are all types [depthfinders] available today. I just use a little flasher. This is to be used as an aid. One of the biggest mistakes people make is to try to find fish on them. And the market today is giving you all kinds of TV screens and everything, and everybody is running around looking for fish. And I see them out in the middle of the lake, in 100 feet of water out there...If I don't make any statement at all that you remember, remember this...This WILL locate channels. This WILL help you find humps, but, it will not show you details that your lure will. This is to be used as an aid, and an aid only...I built a depth sounder before there was any of them on the market, but I didn't use it...Don't run around the lake looking for the fish. If you're going to look for the fish, first look for the structure, then look to see if you see any fish. Then have a lure down there to see if you can get 'em."
RoLo reply :
Whenever we speak of "Bassy-Looking" spots we're generally referring to the scenario "above" the waterline.
However, the fish's world is 'below' the waterline, so our 3D Downscanner is today's most valuable tool
for finding the ‘real’ sweet-spots, where Structure and Cover come together.
Catt reply :
During the 5 day seminar Buck taught us how to dissect maps, what breaks/breaklines to look for once on the water; we talked structure fishing.
I have a surveyor's map of Toledo Bend that is in 1', 3', & 5' contours.
Part of Buck's map study was where to find maps; county surveyor is a public official in many counties of the USA.
A major player in the bass fishing boom of late 60s-early 70s was the building of lakes all across the south. TVA Lakes comprise of 33 lakes, every lake in Texas is manmade.
One would be amazed at how much mapping was done before these lakes were built!
slonezp reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 12:56 AM, scaleface said:This is very true on my home lake , a flood control reservoir . Structure like a hump that has no route to the shallows , will rarely have bass . The bass just dont have time to find it and habituate it before the next muddy water flood hits . These places will still hold crappie , white bass and channel cats . Bass can be caught deep but there has to be that route for then to relate too .
Now on another smaller lake I fish often , there doesnt have to be that route . The water "never" fluctuates more than a couple of feet and if there is good structure or cover bass will find it without a path to the shallows .
How often is the water fluctuating? and why do you think it affects the bass but not the other gamefish?
Reason I bring this up is because most, if not all, freshwater gamefish follow the same seasonal and daily migration habits as bass do with the difference being where they live in relation to where they eat/spawn/shelter.You state other gamefish are attracted to this area, just not bass. Is it possible the food source is insufficient for bass or there are areas close by which offer a larger or more nutritious meal?
Catt mentioned earlier to learn the habits of the bass and then learn the habits of the bait. We have all caught other species of fish while bass fishing and I catch plenty of bass while targeting other species. If I catch bass while targeting panfish, I can bet the bass are targeting the panfish as well. If I'm not catching bass while targeting panfish, I can bet the bass are feeding on baitfish or crawfish and more than likely in another place on the lake. Where I live, bass are not at the top of the food chain. We catch plenty of pike and musky while bass fishing, and the musky guys are catching plenty of bass.....Were I a musky fisherman, I would be learning the habits of the bait (bass and panfish) because that's where the musky will be.
Paul Roberts reply :
Here's a big flat. It's pretty much the shallowest portion of the lake -about 10fow- and we are only seeing a portion of this expansive flat. And there's a boat down there. Is this guy wasting his time?
scaleface reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 8:37 AM, slonezp said:How often is the water fluctuating? and why do you think it affects the bass but not the other gamefish?
It floods often , usually at least once a year and when it floods it gets muddy .Sometimes the water stays high for more than a month , sometimes all spring and summer . If theres a hump that tops out at 15 foot , then it raises 25 foot, thats 40 foot of muddy water ,much too deep for bass in this lake . When the water goes back down the bass have no way to follow it out . There are two humps in particular that I have never caught a single bass on . The other species roam open water in schools more that bass and they will find and occupy the spots .
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 7:12 PM, scaleface said:It floods often , usually at least once a year and when it floods it gets muddy .Sometimes the water stays high for more than a month , sometimes all spring and summer . If theres a hump that tops out at 15 foot , then it raises 25 foot, thats 40 foot of muddy water ,much too deep for bass in this lake . When the water goes back down the bass have no way to follow it out . There are two humps in particular that I have never caught a single bass on . The other species roam open water in schools more that bass and they will find and occupy the spots .
Interesting scenario. Lotsa potential variables out there.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 10:48 AM, Paul Roberts said:Here's a big flat. It's pretty much the shallowest portion of the lake -about 10fow- and we are only seeing a portion of this expansive flat. And there's a boat down there. Is this guy wasting his time?
Paul, No one is "biting" on your trick question ? Seems the obvious answer would be, if he's catching fish, then he's not wasting his time. If he's not catching anything, then I'd say he is wasting time ?
RoLo reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 10:48 AM, Paul Roberts said:Here's a big flat. It's pretty much the shallowest portion of the lake -about 10fow- and we are only seeing a portion of this expansive flat. And there's a boat down there. Is this guy wasting his time?
"Is he wasting his time?"
Quite possibly
If this were during the spawning season, he might do better in 1 to 4 ft of water
Roger
riverbasser reply :
I was just about to answer Paul's question as well. I'm looking on my phone so maybe I don't see as well as some but it looks to be a huge grass flat with pockets everywhere. Looks very similar to a lake the bassmasters visited last year( can't remembered name) but the fish were all in this stuff. When I say fish I mean all kinds of fish not just bass.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/3/2017 at 11:36 PM, Team9nine said:
Paul, No one is "biting" on your trick question ? Seems the obvious answer would be, if he's catching fish, then he's not wasting his time. If he's not catching anything, then I'd say he is wasting time ?
No trick question. Or at least no trap set. My idea is to give us something down at the nitty gritty to chew on, to illustrate what Catt presented in the OP, in a form that is not… a classic main lake point with a drop-off or creek channel at the end.
Thanks for participating, Roger. This was in June and there were fish in all stages. In my -I guess cryptic- tack, season really isn’t what I was thinking about. This area is used year round, probably even under the ice, although I haven’t ice-fished it.
I'm actually thinking along the lines of… "You can have structure without bass, but not bass without structure.” So, what defines “structure” when it’s not so obvious? Especially in light of the questions that always come up surrounding whether -or when- rocks, docks, weeds, party barges, water skiers, etc… can be considered “structure”.
Yes, riverbasser, you are remembering correctly.
And… so no one feels like they are walking into some kind of trap, I’ll get that unnerving lead-in question out of the way: The fisherman in the boat is Kevin Van Dam on his way to winning on Cayuga Lake with 75+lbs. There are bass on this structure, likely all year round.
Hoping to get some people’s thoughts here. Imagine the possibilities on such “structure”. After all, there are bass there; What could be at work there? This may be obvious to some, but not necessarily to others.
riverbasser reply :
I wont lie if I came to this lake and saw this massive "grass flat?" I would be overwhelmed of where to start. There looks to be hundreds of pockets or indents so that's not really a help. Although the grass can be called structure and its a flat ,there still has to be structure underneath. No way it is perfectly flat. So in an area like this a 6 or 12 inch drop could make all the difference.
I would also be really focusing in on any bait since there would have to be areas with groups of bait not just scattered evenly.
Catt reply :
2011 Bassmaster Classic New Orleans, Louisiana
Several Pros including KVD were fishing the same huge pre-spawn feeding flat. VanDam keyed a small ditch running through the grass & stumps...he found it during practice after everyone else had left!
MFBAB reply :
The fisherman in the boat is Kevin Van Dam on his way to winning on Cayuga Lake with 75+lbs. There are bass on this structure, likely all year round.
We can just leave it here if you wish. I was hoping to get some people’s thoughts here. Imagine the possibilities on such “structure”. After all, there are bass there; What could be at work there? This may be obvious to some, but not necessarily to others. Fun game? A waste of time? A trick?
My guess is that the open areas are big rocks or something that grass doesn't grow on, and the grassy areas are probably softer bottom.
I'm thinking he is dropping plastic into the open areas, this is a fairly standard grass strategy.
As far as why the bass are there, I guess that's where the food is.
Also, in that part of the country it was probably equivalent to late spring in my part of the country, in terms of water temp, etc...Wasn't that tourney in June or early July?
I don't think there has to be some major daily migration if the fish have food, stable water, oxygen and security (cover). Those fish would probably just bury in the grass during a bad front and get lock-jaw rather than leave, but they would definitely evacuate the area if the water started falling or got ridiculously cold, etc.
(A good example is one of the MLF tourneys last year, I think on the MS River up north. There were lots of backwaters loaded w grass, and about 90% of the field got sucked in to those areas, which were virtually fishless. The problem was that the water was low, it had fallen prior to the tourney....and guess who? KVD stayed on the outside edges of the backwaters on the first downstream breaks (structure) and found those fish stacked up!!)
It would help to see a more zoomed out view to see what leads in to this flat, I assume this flat is hard water in the winter and the fish would likely migrate to something a little deeper.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/4/2017 at 9:25 AM, riverbasser said:There looks to be hundreds of pockets or indents so that's not really a help. Although the grass can be called structure and its a flat ,there still has to be structure underneath. No way it is perfectly flat.
On 1/4/2017 at 9:46 AM, Catt said:VanDam keyed a small ditch running through the grass & stumps...he found it during practice after everyone else had left!
On 1/4/2017 at 9:50 AM, MFBAB said:My guess is that the open areas are big rocks or something that grass doesn't grow on, and the grassy areas are probably softer bottom.
...
As far as why the bass are there, I guess that's where the food is.
...
I don't think there has to be some major daily migration if the fish have food, stable water, oxygen and security (cover). Those fish would probably just bury in the grass during a bad front and get lock-jaw rather than leave, but they would definitely evacuate the area if the water started falling or got ridiculously cold, etc.
(A good example is one of the MLF tourneys last year, I think on the MS River up north. There were lots of backwaters loaded w grass, and about 90% of the field got sucked in to those areas, which were virtually fishless. The problem was that the water was low, it had fallen prior to the tourney....and guess who? KVD stayed on the outside edges of the backwaters on the first downstream breaks (structure) and found those fish stacked up!!)
It would help to see a more zoomed out view to see what leads in to this flat, I assume this flat is hard water in the winter and the fish would likely migrate to something a little deeper.
Now we're talking.
The Lake is Cayuga Lake, a 40mile long mostly oligotrophic glacial lake, in NYS, that averages well over 200ft in depth (max over 400). That flat is about a mile wide, and almost 2mi. long.
Here's a map: 
Catt reply :
KVD called it a "ditch", his description was that it was several inches deeper than the surrounding area & about a 1 1/2 foot wide. What he realized was it was the breakline the pre-spawn bass were using to move through the flat from deeper water to shallower.
After looking at the weather forecast for the 4 day tournament which showed a warming trend he decided to spend all 4 days on this " ditch" & without out catching a single bass pre-fishing.
riverbasser reply :
Seems "ditches" come into play in a lot of tournaments or its at least a popular term used by the pros to describe a break? I can't really say for sure that I've ever found but one true ditch and it was a man made ditch next to a submerged road.
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/5/2017 at 1:33 AM, Catt said:KVD called it a "ditch", his description was that it was several inches deeper than the surrounding area & about a 1 1/2 foot wide. What he realized was it was the breakline the pre-spawn bass were using to move through the flat from deeper water to shallower.
After looking at the weather forecast for the 4 day tournament which showed a warming trend he decided to spend all 4 days on this " ditch" & without out catching a single bass pre-fishing.
Form, Function, Fit.
Catt reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 3:00 AM, Paul Roberts said:Form, Function, Fit.
Most anglers look for a pattern within a parrtern...I want the sweet spot on structure... Honey Hole!
This one is usually under 4-6'
J Francho reply :
I can tell you this, you better find something structural, that is useful and attractive to bass in the north end of Cayuga, or you aren't getting bit post spawn, and into summer. There are fish there, but if you're an impatient, chuck and duck guy, you'll think it's a barren wasteland. BTW, I came in 3rd one year at a club deal with 19+ lbs. from "particular" boat slips in the far north end, in mid summer. I think less than 8 oz. separated the top five.
Paul Roberts reply :
Not sure who it was, but like others interviewed, one pro said he had quality fish in certain spots (some on beds, others groups in pre or post). When he moved away from these spots, he found only smaller ones.
J Francho reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 3:59 AM, Paul Roberts said:Not sure who it was, but like others interviewed, one pro said he had quality fish in certain spots (some on beds, others groups in pre or post). When he moved away from these spots, he found only smaller ones.
I fished several tournaments on Cayuga, over the course of several years. One year was particularly tough, immediate post spawn, followed by a clear, cool, dry, cold front. The winner that day drowned senkos in one small cove that featured one of @riverbasser's "female points," leading to an adjacent weed flat, maybe around 8' at it's deepest. He didn't know what was so special, but he said all of the bigger fish came from a specific area, and if veered off that area, no fish, or dinks. This wasn't a guy to use his graph, and in fact only had a flasher at the console. I suspect he "discovered" some trench or other subtle feature that pro you mentioned, and KVD were honed in on. Point being, structure can be huge, and blatant, or almost invisible, elusive, as Buck described - only being able to be detected by your lure. The guy that won that day, won by a large margin. He only fishes senkos. When most of the field struggles, he usually does well.
Todd2 reply :
I was going to put this question in a different thread but this is a good structure "conversation" and it fits right in I think.
When focusing on structure, what % of the time are you making contact with it opposed to fishing just above it? I'm not talking about a 18 inch drop shot, for example, to me that is basically bottom fishing especially with the angle when casting. But lets say you have a ditch, drop off, whatever, thats in 14 FOW, are most of your fish on it or up in the water column above it? I almost always seem to focus on the bottom unless I'm marking something but I wonder if I'm fishing below some fish and should be counting down at different depths swimming a grub or something through.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 6:11 AM, Todd2 said:I was going to put this question in a different thread but this is a good structure "conversation" and it fits right in I think.
When focusing on structure, what % of the time are you making contact with it opposed to fishing just above it? I'm not talking about a 18 inch drop shot, for example, to me that is basically bottom fishing especially with the angle when casting. But lets say you have a ditch, drop off, whatever, thats in 14 FOW, are most of your fish on it or up in the water column above it? I almost always seem to focus on the bottom unless I'm marking something but I wonder if I'm fishing below some fish and should be counting down at different depths swimming a grub or something through.
fish can be right on it or suspended above it. In most cases if they're right on it they are active, if they're suspended above it they're usually inactive. I like to make contact with the bottom most of the time.
RoLo reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 6:11 AM, Todd2 said:I was going to put this question in a different thread but this is a good structure "conversation" and it fits right in I think.
When focusing on structure, what % of the time are you making contact with it opposed to fishing just above it? I'm not talking about a 18 inch drop shot, for example, to me that is basically bottom fishing especially with the angle when casting. But lets say you have a ditch, drop off, whatever, thats in 14 FOW, are most of your fish on it or up in the water column above it? I almost always seem to focus on the bottom unless I'm marking something but I wonder if I'm fishing below some fish and should be counting down at different depths swimming a grub or something through.
That's an excellent question!
I can only speak for myself, but in my experience structure puts NO constraints on fish depth.
Depth constraints are imposed by other stuff like water temperature, thermocline, oxycline,
light level and last but not least, 'forage'.
All the same, the underlying structure (terrestrial contour) serves as the magnet.
Roger
Team9nine reply :
Since we're still discussing KVD and Cayuga, here's a little something tied to Paul's picture and question that I ran by him off-line. What follows is a large portion of the write-up that another site did covering KVD's win on Cayuga that Paul used in his example (literally copy/paste). What I have inserted in bold are my comments in regards to how one Spoonplugger/structure fisherman (myself) "interprets," if you will, what is being written, but using "our/Buck's" terms - kind of a thought deconstruction. Lots of ways you can spin/analyze the scenario, whether Paul's "form/fit/function," or some other interpretation. My point was simply that based on the details, you could easily construct an explanation that fits nicely with Buck Perry's message and teachings.
Quote
As he stated above, it didn’t take VanDam long to realize he had an opportunity to do really well at Cayuga. Smallmouth and largemouth were spawning all around the lake (so these were largely spawners that even Buck would expect up shallow and on flats due to their seasonal movement), but there were groups of fish in pre-spawn mode and another group that had already moved out of those areas. It was a matter of dialing in which areas had the better quality.
Locating as many fish on beds as he could was his first priority. He found a mix of both species.
“I marked a lot of fish,” he said. “I had like 30 miles of ‘em, but there were a lot of stretches where you’d go a long way and it’d be one here and there. Over the course of the event, I checked them all.
“In doing that, I found areas with groups of largemouths staging on the inside grass line (a grassline is just a "breakline" which Buck writes about extensively, and which any good structure fisherman would search and check out). I’m not sure if those were pre- or post-spawn, but I fished for those with a 4- or 5-inch Strike King Ocho wacky-rigged.”
He also identified a couple of key docks that were holding fish, which proved valuable because not every dock was productive (Buck wrote that docks are actually nothing more than "breaks," and as such, certain ones will be better than others based upon their relationship to other variables (such as structure, breaklines, deep water, etc.).
“There was one where I could see 12 fish under there,” he said. “You could then go a couple miles and not find another one holding fish. It reminded me of Clear Lake in that sense.”
When it came to the areas where he was looking at fish, he didn’t go back through that water later on. He did, however, revisit areas where fish were holding on grass lines ("breaklines") and hanging out around holes and hard-bottom areas in the grass (again, all "breaks" that a good structure fisherman would try and identify) on the northern end.
And a thought in regard to Todd2's question:
On 1/6/2017 at 6:11 AM, Todd2 said:When focusing on structure, what % of the time are you making contact with it opposed to fishing just above it? I'm not talking about a 18 inch drop shot, for example, to me that is basically bottom fishing especially with the angle when casting. But lets say you have a ditch, drop off, whatever, thats in 14 FOW, are most of your fish on it or up in the water column above it? I almost always seem to focus on the bottom unless I'm marking something but I wonder if I'm fishing below some fish and should be counting down at different depths swimming a grub or something through.
Just another thought based on Buck's guidelines. Anything in shallow water (8-10' or less), you have to fish the entire water column, top, middle and bottom. However, once you move out into deep water, you only fish the bottom. That's not to say that there aren't fish suspended up higher, but in most cases the more active fish that you are likely to get to bite are the ones that have moved in contact with the structure (on bottom). If the suspended fish are active at all, you'll likely discover this in the process of your fishing by them either hitting your bait on the drop before it ever reaches bottom, or hitting as you reel in after fishing the bottom. But you don't waste much time intentionally trying to find and catch suspended fish (that may or may not be there) above these structures in deep water.
-T9
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 6:11 AM, Todd2 said:I was going to put this question in a different thread but this is a good structure "conversation" and it fits right in I think.
When focusing on structure, what % of the time are you making contact with it opposed to fishing just above it? I'm not talking about a 18 inch drop shot, for example, to me that is basically bottom fishing especially with the angle when casting. But lets say you have a ditch, drop off, whatever, thats in 14 FOW, are most of your fish on it or up in the water column above it? I almost always seem to focus on the bottom unless I'm marking something but I wonder if I'm fishing below some fish and should be counting down at different depths swimming a grub or something through.
Not sure there's a rule there. But bottom contact is often the best, probably 90+% of time: fish are more secure, prey can be easier to catch against bottom, contact triggers. But... not always, depending on what's going on. Fish could be resting or feeding up high. If former they could be suspended, neutrally buoyant, as riverbasser suggests. If latter they could be up and chasing pelagic prey. If there is vertical cover there, they could be doing either as well. Peri-spawn (pre-spawn when spawn is imminent, during spawn, immediately post-spawn) bass may be suspended high in the water column -females esp- at or near the depth they're be spawning at. And...I often check aggressiveness of bass by fishing high to see if they'll move, chase. If not, I'll go down after them.
On 1/6/2017 at 8:05 AM, Team9nine said:Paul's "form/fit/function,"
BTW: This is Catt's terminology. I used it to hook back up with the OP.
WRB reply :
Regarding fishing too deep on structure is a common mistake IMO. Bass usually don't chase anything down into deep water very far. The reason is they are not physically biult to see underneath them without rolling to one side, they see everything in front or above perfectly! The fact is bass see your lure coming down through the water column or hear/feel it crawling along the structure....they know it's in the neighborhood. Just how deep the bass will go down to get something is up for debate, no question about going forward or up to strike.
This is why knowing the depth zone bass are using is important.
Tom
Team9nine reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:23 AM, Paul Roberts said:Not sure there's a rule there. But bottom contact is often the best, probably 90+% of time: fish are more secure, prey can be easier to catch against bottom, contact triggers. But... not always, depending on what's going on. Fish could be resting or feeding up high. If former they could be suspended, neutrally buoyant, as riverbasser suggests. If latter they could be up and chasing pelagic prey. If there is vertical cover there, they could be doing either as well. Peri-spawn (pre-spawn when spawn is imminent, during spawn, immediately post-spawn) bass may be suspended high in the water column -females esp- at or near the depth they're be spawning at. And...I often check aggressiveness of bass by fishing high to see if they'll move, chase. If not, I'll go down after them.
No rule, but instead what Buck referred to as a Guideline - he had a bunch of them. The nice thing being you didn't have to care or worry about why a fish did or didn't, would or wouldn't, do something - it really doesn't matter. You follow the guidelines and they'll tip the odds in your favor for catching fish as quickly and simply as possible. It reminds me a lot of Rick Clunn's mentality. I have an article where they were asking him (Clunn) about deep water bass fishing, and how he determined and fished for deep bass. His point was simple - he didn't care why they were there. Thermocline? pH? temperature? Didn't matter - his theory was you only stop and fish if you see fish on the finder, regardless of "why" they might be there.
I love, and can appreciate, the science and details as much as anyone. But I've come to the realization that simplicity in approach and reason with fishing has a certain allure to it also
-T9
Paul Roberts reply :
Simplifying is essentially how we predators get anything done amid such complexity. I've been wired a bit differently however (I blame a rock bass that tugged on my line when I was 5 years old). I want to know why. It's what drives my fishing.
I was perusing some of Buck's course books last night, and in one he said (paraphrased) that fisherman rarely ask WHY. But, in his writings, he does a great job of what and how, but precious little why. What and how are indispensable. But I'm a why guy. Can't help it. Even if I'm the only one interested.
riverbasser reply :
I understand both points y'all are making. Team9 keep it simple and Paul asking why. Both are good points and I don't think team9 is saying don't ever question the details but I wanted to add that asking "why" every time I catch a fish has probably helped me more than anything else when it comes to finding and catching fish. Its how I started to learn how to develop a pattern and in my opinion is KEY to consistently catching fish.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:55 AM, Paul Roberts said:I was perusing some of Buck's course books last night, and in one he said (paraphrased) that fisherman rarely ask WHY. But, in his writings, he does a great job of what and how, but precious little why. What and how are indispensable. But I'm a why guy. Can't help it. Even if I'm the only one interested.
Going OT, but back then, I think "why" in regards to a lot of environmental questions was simply unknown. Not that they didn't want to explain why, but they actually didn't know. That said, Buck did always say that every time you caught a bass, you needed to ask yourself "why" that fish was there (more in relationship to how he got there though). Technology now allows us to dig deeper and get answers to a lot of these questions, but back in the 1950s and 1960s when much of Buck's theories were developed and shared, they didn't have readily available and affordable things like personal underwater cameras, tiny radio transmitters for telemetry tracking, lithium powered micro batteries and transmitters, etc. They barely even had depthfinders - lol. I don't think they could explain a lot. Instead, they used angling as the means to identify "what is," and then fit the explanation to the result. What else could they do? What amazes me is how well some of these theories still hold up 60 years later.
I have to admit I get a big kick these days watching all these GoPro anglers, offering a host of explanations for why they're catching fish in their videos - "They're feeding on crawdads in the rocks, and my bait is a perfect match," or "The wind is blowing into this pocket stirring up the invertebrates and piling up plankton, and the shad are following," even, "These rocks are holding heat and making these bass more active," yada, yada, yada. Did you cut that fish open and see what it was feeding on? Do you somehow see these schools of baitfish in the water you say these fish are feeding on? Did you take a temperature gauge and test this rock heating theory out? In a way, things haven't changed 60 years later 
-T9
scaleface reply :
Theres an old , 200 acre reservoir I fish a lot . The last day I fished it last October I was trolling a 14 foot jon boat across a major creek arm , powered by an electric motor only . Watching my depth finder I saw a lot of fish marks and shad about 15 foot deep on a featureless bottom .After tossing a marker buoy I cast a lipless crank , let it set , hopped it back and preceded to catch about 50 bass . Now I wanted to know "why" . After I was finished with the spot I started searching the bottom for structure and found a well defined creek channel 15 to 20 yards away . Up shallow the channels are silted in but out deep there it was . Just speculation here but I always try to "connect the dots " .Maybe the bass were relating to the channel but followed shad out on the flat .
I've been thinking about it ever since and planning how i'm going to dissect that area next year . i might be wrong but I plan on pulling some real hawgs from that creek channel .
Catt reply :
Why! I don't need no stinking why!
"If you worry about what might be, and wonder what might have been, you will ignore what is."
When I'm on the water, hunting, or simply outdoors the above is the only rule I apply!
"Fish the moment" as defined by Catt
Take what little understanding I have about structure, add to that my understanding of how bass relate to structure, then add to that the relationship between predator & prey.
Now here's the "fish the moment" part; apply those 3 understandings to today's conditions!
Now off the water I'll talk why!
@Team9nine we talking fishing so there aint no off topic!
scaleface reply :
Excuse me if I'm not comprehending this correctly but if you dont try to find out why, how do you plan on repeating your success ?
J Francho reply :
An old timer friend of mine (a d**n good fisherman, as well) always says, "Why? Because." His point was that the observation, and putting the puzzle together for that trip was more important than figuring out why. If you get to the "why" part, then great. Often you do not.
Catt reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:28 PM, scaleface said:Excuse me if I'm not comprehending this correctly but if you dont try to find out why, how do you plan on repeating your success ?
Why & if are the two biggest words in the dictionary!
I don't need to know why they're hitting spinnerbaits instead of crankbaits, I just need to know which they're hitting!
I don't need to know why the shallow bite is on & not the deep bite, I just need to know which bite is on!
On 1/6/2017 at 8:28 PM, scaleface said:Excuse me if I'm not comprehending this correctly but if you dont try to find out why, how do you plan on repeating your success ?
Why & if are the two biggest words in the dictionary!
I don't need to know why they're hitting spinnerbaits instead of crankbaits, I just need to know which they're hitting!
I don't need to know why the shallow bite is on & not the deep bite, I just need to know which bite is on!
What I do need to know is "why" am I double posting?
scaleface reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 11:04 PM, Catt said:
Why & if are the two biggest words in the dictionary!
I don't need to know why they're hitting spinnerbaits instead of crankbaits, I just need to know which they're hitting!
I don't need to know why the shallow bite is on & not the deep bite, I just need to know which bite is on!
Why & if are the two biggest words in the dictionary!
I don't need to know why they're hitting spinnerbaits instead of crankbaits, I just need to know which they're hitting!
I don't need to know why the shallow bite is on & not the deep bite, I just need to know which bite is on!
What I do need to know is "why" am I double posting?
I see . I was focusing on structure and why the bass are where they are found .
Of course we all have days that are baffling . i have plenty of those .
Team9nine reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:28 PM, scaleface said:Excuse me if I'm not comprehending this correctly but if you dont try to find out why, how do you plan on repeating your success ?
I think you're close, but see if this explains where we're coming from. From a Spoonplugging perspective, Buck wrote that it is likely no two fishing trips are ever likely the same - there are simply too many variables; time, temp, weather, water clarity, oxygen, cloud cover, fishing pressure, and on and on. If that is the case, then how could you ever rely on any of those things to help you catch fish consistently each time you hit the water? In your example, what if the next time you hit that spot there are no shad up shallow, or even anywhere around? Or it's a different time of year? You still think you can repeat your catch in the same manner?
Instead, what rarely changes are the structure, breaks and breaklines in the area that the fish likely are using. As such, you approach each day assuming you'll have to relocate those fish in the area. Today they may be shallow, deep, or somewhere in-between ? And you won't necessarily catch them at the same depth or speed/presentation. In that regard, you were speculating that your bass might have followed the shad up onto the flat, but even you don't know if that's the real "why" they were there - and the point being does it matter? Because if they're not there, you'll adjust your looking shallower or deeper, and when you find them and catch 'em, you'll have a new theory as to why - but so what...you'll still catch them ?
-T9
Edit - just saw Catt replied while I was typing with a simpler explanation ?
scaleface reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 11:13 PM, Team9nine said:
I think you're close, but see if this explains where we're coming from. From a Spoonplugging perspective, Buck wrote that it is likely no two fishing trips are ever likely the same - there are simply too many variables; time, temp, weather, water clarity, oxygen, cloud cover, fishing pressure, and on and on. If that is the case, then how could you ever rely on any of those things to help you catch fish consistently each time you hit the water? In your example, what if the next time you hit that spot there are no shad up shallow, or even anywhere around? Or it's a different time of year? You still think you can repeat your catch in the same manner?
Instead, what rarely changes are the structure, breaks and breaklines in the area that the fish likely are using. As such, you approach each day assuming you'll have to relocate those fish in the area. Today they may be shallow, deep, or somewhere in-between ? And you won't necessarily catch them at the same depth or speed/presentation. In that regard, you were speculating that your bass might have followed the shad up onto the flat, but even you don't know if that's the real "why" they were there - and the point being does it matter? Because if they're not there, you'll adjust your looking shallower or deeper, and when you find them and catch 'em, you'll have a new theory as to why - but so what...you'll still catch them ?
-T9
Edit - just saw Catt replied while I was typing with a simpler explanation ?
I see . You're correct I dont expect to catch bass on the deep flat at the same place again but I do expect them to be relating to the nearby channel .
Team9nine reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 11:18 PM, scaleface said:I see . You're correct I dont expect to catch bass on the deep flat at the same place again but I do expect them to be relating to the nearby channel .
? yep - if you catch adult fish on specific structure, breaks, breaklines, then that becomes a known productive structure situation, and as such you always keep it "in your back pocket" for future trips...
-T9
A-Jay reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:28 PM, scaleface said:Excuse me if I'm not comprehending this correctly but if you dont try to find out why, how do you plan on repeating your success ?
I can understand this mindset and it's been a challenge for me to understand or decide if why is something I should be giving more attention to.
In the past, I spent quite a bit of time & effort trying to figure out why a bite was good or bad or why a bait produced one time & not another. I expended even more energy on the why's & why not's of spots, lakes & locations: keeping this response along the lines of the OP about structure. When it was all said & done - instead of as asking why and expecting to be able to answer it definitively, I ask maybe and hope for perhaps a few pieces of the puzzle with results being the final answer.
Reading @Team9nine response above, I happen to agree with the mantra that because virtually none of the success in bass fishing is 100 % repeatable 100% of the time, "answers" are like unicorns . . . . . .
Each angler's approach to bass fishing is different and mine starts with structure and movement. It offers a starting point to maybe find the bass and perhaps have some understanding of where they are heading. Right here is where I used to ask Why. Almost every time I expected the answer to revolve around food, but as mentioned above, the variables are many; weather, cheaper rent, the price of gas, who knows. . .I'm good with finding them wherever they may be and hopefully getting a few of the fatter ones to eat.
A-Jay
scaleface reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 11:31 PM, A-Jay said:
When it was all said & done - instead of as asking why and expecting to be able to answer it definitively, I ask maybe and hope for perhaps a few pieces of the puzzle with results being the final answer.
A-Jay
Thats why I used the term " connecting the dots " . Sometimes I do get it right . LOL
J Francho reply :
I think sometimes you can try to make assumptions on the why part. One situation comes to mind. Fishing a a large, deep ADK lake (Upper Saranac), we ran into a nasty cold front, and everyone was saying the bite was off. My feeling is that fish that prefer deep water are less affected by weather at the surface - cooling temps, barometric pressure, wind, etc. We froze our butts off in the middle of summer, but had a banner day fishing deep points and boulder fields. By deep, I mean 15-25', with even deeper water nearby. We even had a passenger boat his PB smallmouth. It wasn't huge by Erie standards, but at 3+ lbs., a trophy for the north country, where the growing season is around 3 months.
In that sense, I've learned to make an assumption about "why" - the weather affects the shallow bass, and shuts them down, while deeper bass are still active - though, we still focused on structure, and how we found the fish were relating to it. The rules, or guidelines, didn't change. Wind swept points and islands, with deep water access, and deep flats with boulders, again near deep water produced. Maybe my "why" answer is wrong, but that assumption has paid off more than once.
Catt reply :
In my example of KVD the "why" was as follows.
Shallow water feeding flat; why because it was pre-spawn
The "ditch"; why, basss must have a visible path of breaks and break lines on a structure from deep water all the way to the shallows; which is where the bulk of food is available to bass.
scaleface reply :
So dont let the small details get in the way of the overall picture , because there is a good chance the assumption is wrong .
Catt reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 12:20 AM, scaleface said:So dont let the small details get in the way of the overall picture , because there is a good chance the assumption is wrong .
KVD with the basics which was structure, breaks/breaklines, & cover.
With his lures selection of a spinnerbait, a square bill 1.5, & a red eye shad he made adjustments to current details. He switched to 20# fluorocarbon to his lures higher in the water column & dropped down to a 5.4:1 gear ratio.
MFBAB reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 12:38 AM, Catt said:
KVD with the basics which was structure, breaks/breaklines, & cover.
With his lures selection of a spinnerbait, a square bill 1.5, & a red eye shad he made adjustments to current details. He switched to 20# fluorocarbon to his lures higher in the water column & dropped down to a 5.4:1 gear ratio.
Sounds like he was fine-tuning depth and speed
Y'all are cracking me up with all of this 'Why" talk. I don't think "Why" means the same thing to all of you guys in this conversation
One mans why is structure, anothers is wheres the bait, anothers is some other variable in the equation.
The structure is why they are there from a big picture standpoint,
the water color(light penetration)/weather(cold front, stable, etc.)/current seasonal pattern and temp will have an effect on what depth and what type of structure they are relating to currently, so there's another why,
Then the location of the food source will pinpoint their location further still-are there weeds? Current? There's another why.
What baits would they react to? Why one retrieve or color and not another on this day?
You can drown in the details sometimes, but the one thing that always seems to remain constant is the structure(the foundation), they'll be relating to it and moving on it along those predictable routes more often than not, so you've narrowed the search down considerably once you begin to embrace that concept.
You can come up with whatever story you want to for why they were on that specific spot at that specific time eating that specific bait on that specific day, but you either
a ) stumbled onto them completely by accident, or
b ) you were eliminating water on a given piece of structure where you expected to find them at some point shallow-deep-or in between :):)
The big thing is, getting it in your head right and understanding it. Dated or not, there's no more thorough explanation of the concept than BP's. If you read and understand that book, and I mean really pay attention to the details, it all starts to click better. On the other hand, you can get lost pretty badly if you try to pick and choose which parts of the concept are important!
I didn't mean for any of that to sound like a rant, I just honestly believe that the structure concept is a great way to actually simplify the process, even though it takes an investment of time on the front end to learn it and change gears so to speak.
And no, it's not 100% perfect, but it's answered more "why's" for me than any other book or article I've ever read, or any fishing experience I've ever had, and combined they are many
Paul Roberts reply :
Great conversation; It’s such a pleasure. I "liked" pretty much everything. Started to multi-quote and gave it up there are so many great comments. I agree with all of it, which tells me we're all pretty much on the same page, give or take. If I could make a summary comment it would be in the recognition of the myriad variables we all know -or eventually discover- summed up in A-Jay's "chasing unicorns".
And, Brian, I've also gone GoPro. Yeah, and I'm hoping to explain a few things along the way. As I write (about... nature stuff) I am constantly aware of the variables and how difficult it is to make "statements". But I've grown used to it, having had enough experiences in the sciences to fathom the fact that such inquiries are surrounded by error bars, and that knowledge (despite touted as the key to successful fishing) is mostly incomplete.
I sum up my fishing this way: Although fishing may require a lot of knowledge, planning, observation, and execution, on the water we're flying by the seat of our pants. And I joke that I start re-writing history as soon as I leave the water. All I can hope for is that I've done enough homework on the variables that I can at least consider them in my final narrative -what my 40years of journaling has been all about.
Along the lines of John's post above, I recently shot a video journal called Bluebird Blue, in which I fish a small "Swimming Pool" of a pond under post-frontal blue. There were other anglers on that pond while I was there, and they all blanked. The most outwardly capable of them (by speak, tackle quality, and enthusiasm) told me he'd been crushing them over the last week with "horizontal baits", it being "fall". I smiled and thought to myself, "Oooh boy, today you are headed for a "fall" alright." An hour or so later he was packing out, fishless, and said he was going to other ponds "to find some biters".
I shot my video with the pond to myself that included underwater video of bass happily hunting in 2fow under those bluebird skies and clear water. I caught bass (by finesse) and finished with my "Blue-pers" for the day -me spooking bass after bass, showing why those fish were so darn hard to catch. It wasn't because those bass had lock-jaw, went deep, hid in inside turns, crawled into crevices, etc.... . Instead, it was MOST simply because they were so ready to turn inside out at anything out of place. I emphasize "MOST" because it's not the whole story, of course, as there were other variables at play. But the bass's shift from aggressive hunting to vigilance was the first, and largest, hurdle.
Knowing the variables well enough to consider which of them are likely (error bars again) most significant in the moment is how I play the game; How I think we all play the game, as best we can. After all we're all merely mortal, unlike the likes of Buck Perry. Or so it would seem.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 2:31 AM, Paul Roberts said:After all we're all merely mortal, unlike the likes of Buck Perry, or so it would seem.
Good summary, and yes it seems I must read his book to see what all the fuss is about. Hard to make time since I'm currently on a theology kick but maybe once its on the coffee table ill find time to read through.
If this threads wrapping up I guess ill get to reading the some others, last few days I got on here just to check this one out.
Thanks for starting this Catt, and all the others who participated. It was a great discussion!
MFBAB reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 2:31 AM, Paul Roberts said:After all we're all merely mortal, unlike the likes of Buck Perry. Or so it would seem.
I don't think BP would have thought of himself as anything resembling immortal. I just think that he decided to focus his energies on finding out where bass went when they were hard to catch (Summer/Winter/Fronts, etc...), and being a genius (Physics Prof), he just started applying logic and scientific method to his theories.
The good part about the scientific method is that it is basically an effort to refute or disprove your own ideas by testing them, so the ones that survive the vetting process are at least somewhat unassailable.
I think BP goes WAY overboard on how deep the fish go after say a front, or during winter, and I think he exaggerates how often they may migrate from shallow to deep, I think maybe he does some of this on purpose to drive his points home harder, but it's anyone's guess.
On the other hand, he managed to figure out some of the most basic, yet most repeatable and reliable tendencies of these pea-brained little green jokers, things that as simple as they are, mystify us because they all occur in an underwater world that we can't actually see.
IMO, like I said earlier, I think that underwater world is laid out as clearly to the fish as a football field is to us, but BP was the one who really figured that out and explained it so clearly to us
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 3:23 AM, MFBAB said:I don't think BP would have thought of himself as anything resembling immortal. ...
Agreed. He did say a lot about how he's always learning and will never know it all -too many variables basically. There are no EXPERTS I think is how he has put it.
I'm not sure how truly scientific his methods really were. Organized, perceptive, and well executed, yes. However, I've never been sold on "scientific fishing". I believe that's virtually as mutually exclusive in practice as it in semantics.
That said, what he put together was pretty impressive body of work. And he knew how to go about it.
J Francho reply :
Like most things I like to pursue, it's a mix of science and art. With practice comes skill.
MFBAB reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 3:59 AM, Paul Roberts said:Agreed. He did say a lot about how he's always learning and will never know it all -too many variables basically. There are no EXPERTS I think is how he has put it.
I'm not sure what how scientific his methods really were -organized, perceptive, and executed, yes. However, I've never been sold on "scientific fishing". I believe that's virtually as mutually exclusive in practice as it in semantics.
That said, what he put together was pretty impressive body of work.
What I meant by scientific method was more about the process of elimination and less about "scientific fishing" perse. I don't think he was running around with a ph meter or anything like that
In other words, if his theory was that the fish would tend to retreat to a deep spot on structure, and not just any one, but the fastest breaking one with the most logical access to deeper water, then he would test all of the other options on that piece of structure and many other similar ones, before stating it as a fact. He would set out to disprove his own theory, rather than look for ways to support it, and if it came through the process still standing, then it's considered a fact (to him) for all intents and purposes.
Gravity is still just a theory too
lonnie g reply :
nice info cat!! been working on breaks where points are close to chanel using worm on bottom. I like it!
slonezp reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 12:20 AM, scaleface said:So dont let the small details get in the way of the overall picture , because there is a good chance the assumption is wrong .
I think, to keep it simple: You, I , We, are are not going out on the water blind, shooting from the hip. If we bring a little bit of knowledge with us and gather additional information along the way, we already know why.
For example, before heading out, we look at a topo map or a map card on the graph and get a general idea of where we need to fish based on what we have learned from BR or Saturday morning fishing shows. Common stuff like points and coves and wind blown shorelines. Show up at the lake and I can now determine water clarity wind, light conditions, and water temp before I've even started to fish. Visual cues like the slope of the shoreline as it enters the water, is the shoreline rock? Mud? Man made? Does the shoreline make an abrupt change. Do I see trees/stumps in the water? Do I see shadows? Do I see current and/or current and wind breaks? Now we can start fine tuning based on what we see on the graph and the information we have unconsciously collected up until that point. Thus, we already know why. Remember "Change is good"
IndianaFinesse reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 8:32 AM, Team9nine said:
No rule, but instead what Buck referred to as a Guideline - he had a bunch of them. The nice thing being you didn't have to care or worry about why a fish did or didn't, would or wouldn't, do something - it really doesn't matter. You follow the guidelines and they'll tip the odds in your favor for catching fish as quickly and simply as possible. It reminds me a lot of Rick Clunn's mentality. I have an article where they were asking him (Clunn) about deep water bass fishing, and how he determined and fished for deep bass. His point was simple - he didn't care why they were there. Thermocline? pH? temperature? Didn't matter - his theory was you only stop and fish if you see fish on the finder, regardless of "why" they might be there.
I love, and can appreciate, the science and details as much as anyone. But I've come to the realization that simplicity in approach and reason with fishing has a certain allure to it also
-T9
What lures do you use the majority of the time for off shore bass?
Team9nine reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 12:03 PM, IndianaFinesse said:What lures do you use the majority of the time for off shore bass?
Everything you'd expect, and a couple you wouldn't For bass, crankbaits for covering water fast, casting and trolling. I also use Spoonplugs, mostly for trolling. For slower presentations, of course jigs and worms get the nod. Then seasonally, you know about jerkbaits and blade baits. I'm going to add swimbaits into the mix next year.
It's not so much any specific baits as everything you read about can and will produce. It's more focusing on finding specific structural elements and then figuring out which ones the fish use regulalrly, where they make contact, and how they move on those features, both shallow and deep that becomes the key. With enough time and catches, you will figure out exactly where your best chances to catch a fish are most days and can then "milk run" multiple structural elements in a day, only focusing your time and efforts on known productive ones. That becomes the payoff for all the time and effort placed up front to figure it all out
-T9
Turkey sandwich reply :
This conversation is probably one of my favorites on the forum, and I can't credit enough of you guys for your remarks and insight. It's a reminder that there are some really bright fellas on here, and a lot I would love to spend time on the water trading ideas with. It's hard to quote just one person on here, but Francho's recent comment about science and art is spot on - and in bigger terms than just fishing. I think that ultimately becomes the allure for so many of us in our careers, hobbies, passions, etc because in fields where the two combine perfection becomes a completely impossible, yet inescapable pursuit. This is how we become addicted.
To quit waxing philosophical and return to the discussion of the "why", I view it as piecing together a puzzle that will always have pieces missing. You're never going to know EVERY detail or create a true control, so finding perfect "why" solutions consistently (and especially on different bodies of water or under difficultly conditions) is extremely difficult. We know that food, mating, comfort, and safety are dominant factors, but getting them all figured out at once is really f'n hard, if not impossible. Realistically, I think a pursuit of understanding "why" is a general necessity as an angler superseded only by the understanding that most of the time we're only going to figure out parts of the puzzle and hope it's enough to be productive.
"hamma" reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 4:02 PM, Turkey sandwich said:This conversation is probably one of my favorites on the forum, and I can't credit enough of you guys for your remarks and insight. It's a reminder that there are some really bright fellas on here, and a lot I would love to spend time on the water trading ideas with. It's hard to quote just one person on here, but Francho's recent comment about science and art is spot on - and in bigger terms than just fishing. I think that ultimately becomes the allure for so many of us in our careers, hobbies, passions, etc because in fields where the two combine perfection becomes a completely impossible, yet inescapable pursuit. This is how we become addicted.
To quit waxing philosophical and return to the discussion of the "why", I view it as piecing together a puzzle that will always have pieces missing. You're never going to know EVERY detail or create a true control, so finding perfect "why" solutions consistently (and especially on different bodies of water or under difficultly conditions) is extremely difficult. We know that food, mating, comfort, and safety are dominant factors, but getting them all figured out at once is really f'n hard, if not impossible. Realistically, I think a pursuit of understanding "why" is a general necessity as an angler superseded only by the understanding that most of the time we're only going to figure out parts of the puzzle and hope it's enough to be productive.
I agree, considering the WHY in some instances is the hardest part of bass fishing in my opinion. But yet still alluring.
Up here? There arent many big lakes where bass are the top predator, or only predator, for that matter. Pike, pickeral, and various trouts, will fill up a finders screen with deep water haunts just as much as a bass will. Only way to determine what you see on a finder is to catch one, if you can,.... some of these species will, and do, not only colonize the deeper waters, but will mix in together as well. To say that what you see on a finders screen is bass, is a very difficult assumption, as these fish will harbor these "deep haunts" while either inactive, or targeting specific forage, which again, is a difficult assumption alone. Due to the fact that there may be a couple dozen different forage's to choose from. Insect's such as hellgramite's, mayflies, skeeter larvae, etc. etc. etc, to suckers, dace, chubs, herring, alwive, shiner, shad, crayfish, eels, and so on. Keying in on the correct forage maybe a dauntless task, and these deeper fish, usually drive most bass anglers nuts trying to figure out "what's down there?",...
From NH's lakes region, Maines big lakes, Quabbin, and many other large waters in New England. Most bass anglers stick to the shorelines due to this difficult deep structure entity. "Some" will venture out with a dropshot rig, or carolina rig, jigs, and swimbaits, All seeking that magic spot on a spot that harbors those chunky deep water bass, be it smallies or largemouth, but most,... give up frustrated.
I am stubborn, and over the years of being so, have found a few tricks, tips, and hints, that dont "always" work. But pan out on a 50/50 basis if im that lucky! Maybe thats why Im such a "jighead and grub guy" as this is my bait of choice to initiate the first hit. Many of these predatory fish will hit it, be it, reluctantly, or with reckless abandonment. And much like Rick Clunn, at that moment, the why doesnt matter,....its more the "what is on the line" right then.
And that right there, is deep water structure bassing up here in a nutshell. There's alot of doubt, considerations, and anticipation, until you finally see what you've hooked. And if it is a bass? then comes the why.,... Only,.. that thought doesn't arise until my next cast, as the lure dissappears into the depths once again. Anxious for another tummy filled smallie that pushes the PB issue. Affirming another deep water haunt that holds them during a "easterly" breeze, at that time of year.
Science, art, and why? up here? To me, only follow's trial and error, and much of it at that. Then I can start picking apart, or put together, the science, art, and why.
I wonder how much success Buck Perry would have enjoyed employing his theories up here, that would have panned out as bass. Trolling spoons, over deep structures up here? many salmon, and laker guys do catch some smallies, and some largemouth. But they also get pike, pickeral, rainbows, and their quarry as well.
Dypsis reply :
On 1/2/2017 at 2:06 PM, Catt said:
Roger this is the perfect place to add a quote from our old friend George Welcome!
Another interesting note to this is water flow in itself can emulate structure.
First, one of the best threads on here or any forum for that matter.
But can we further dive into this sentence from George? I fish mostly tidal rivers - Potomac, Upper Bay, Chickahominy/James. I will first say I am on the newer side to both fishing and tidal waters, but there have been days where the tide dictates everything.
I will never forget my 2nd or 3rd time out on the Potomac (early April) I went with a member of the club I just joined and we fished this ~200yd stretch (with 3 giant fallen trees over those 200yds) at least 3 times that day. No bites at all, then we went back maybe an hour or so before getting off the water and BAM we each hooked at least a half dozen bass each in that hour time. I told him that when I saw us coming back here for a 4th time that this was a waste and he said I knew they were here just had to get them when they were feeding - now was it the tide that changed I don't know, but that is my thinking.
Then I was taken back to the same exact spot that Fall by another club member and we whacked fish again. I told him about the previous time I had been there and he said he showed him that spot. He also told me that many others fish here but don't know why it holds fish. I asked why he said look at the depth finder we were sitting in 8 FOW then he said keep watching and I saw it climb up to maybe 3-4', which was exactly where we always turned around and went back the other way to those 3 trees. So that day I learned how important not only watching your depth finder is but also about structure and what is happening below the water surface.
But back to my question and specifically about 'water flow in itself can emulate structure'. This one creek we fish alot is known to be a low tide creek - the reasoning I'm told is that when the water pulls out the grass lines or breakline the bait fish have to pull out making them easy prey. You can still catch them along the grass lines at high tide, but your bites are fewer and farther between.
I'm not sure if I really asked my question in there at all, but I am hoping someone can comment on how tides play into all of this. It would seem the structure part of it would remain the same (where the bass are) but the tide factors in on when they will actually feed? Thoughts?
Catt reply :
@Dypsis excellent question!
Tidal fishing is completely controlled by the tide in than it turns the bite on & off like a light switch.
The tide position the bass on the structure & in the cover.
I would be willing to say the first 3 times y'all visited those trees the tide wasn't moving?
I think what George was referring to was consistent water flow.
I must admit while I feel I can hang with top 10% of the anglers here on lakes & in marshes when it comes to rivers I'd be lucky to finish in the top 50%!
I know the site has some outstanding River Rats & hopefully they will reply.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 7:12 PM, "hamma" said:
I wonder how much success Buck Perry would have enjoyed employing his theories up here, that would have panned out as bass. Trolling spoons, over deep structures up here? many salmon, and laker guys do catch some smallies, and some largemouth. But they also get pike, pickeral, rainbows, and their quarry as well.
Buck used bass as his example fish because he felt they reacted most dramatically to weather and water conditions and exemplified local and seasonal movement patterns, but he always said if any other species "got in the way" so much the better. For example, in "Spoonplugging" he covers salmon fishing on the Great Lakes. He also enjoyed saltwater fishing, but his approach was always the same. These northern fisheries where bass aren't the top predator became a somewhat controversial issue when the Lindner's and In-Fisherman capitalized on the fact that in some waters, bass couldn't really follow this deep water behavior. Still in other waters they are out there mixed in as you state. I think Buck would just say 'catch them all!'
On 1/7/2017 at 9:01 PM, Dypsis said:
2 hours ago, Dypsis said:
I'm not sure if I really asked my question in there at all, but I am hoping someone can comment on how tides play into all of this. It would seem the structure part of it would remain the same (where the bass are) but the tide factors in on when they will actually feed? Thoughts?
Can't too in depth because I'm trying to type this on my phone ? But Buck wrote that current is treated as a breakline. When you have no current, those breaklines would be eliminated. However, with current, fish would now have breaklines to move, follow and feed along, and even better, in the case of your downed trees, that would be a 'break on a breakline' scenario where fish pause and stop on their movements, and where you should expect to catch fish.
-T9
MFBAB reply :
On 1/7/2017 at 9:01 PM, Dypsis said:I'm not sure if I really asked my question in there at all, but I am hoping someone can comment on how tides play into all of this. It would seem the structure part of it would remain the same (where the bass are) but the tide factors in on when they will actually feed? Thoughts?
The tide coming in and out is creating a current, so it will fish more like a river during those times, and the stronger the current(like spring tides, etc.), the better it will position the fish.
We have a similar situation on river run impoundments like the TN river lakes. Basically, there is no current unless the dams are pulling water.
During the times when there is no current, the fish tend to suspend off of structure, but when the current is running, the baitfish and predators pull into the eddys (feeding/holding stations) and there tends to be a good feeding spree, particularly near the beginning of these periods.
In a tidal situation, you have the current coming in, and then you have it going out, in the opposite direction, so there will likely be structures that fish better on an incoming or outgoing tide, you just have to find the ones that create the best eddys adjacent to the current itself, and the fish will tend to hold there as an ambush point.
Those types of places will not produce much without current on them though, the fish will tend too pull off and suspend or go inactive, especially in a situation where they are programmed to the tide movements every day. Those are even more structured than the dam schedule on the TN river impoundments!
Eddys/feeding stations are anything that breaks the current, it could be a point or small protrusion from the bank that water flows around, an island, a grass bed, an underwater rock, a dock, there are many possibilities....but the best ones will be in some way related to structural elements and access to deeper water, deeper water being a relative term depending on the area you are fishing and other variables like season and water color, etc. The access to deeper water gives the fish somewhere to pull off to when the current isn't running, this is the basics of how fish work, they tend to follow rising water and they also tend to follow falling water, and they like to be on the leading edge of either one-leading edge of rising water=first to feed, leading edge of falling water = not getting stuck somewhere, to them.
slonezp reply :
On 1/8/2017 at 12:16 AM, Team9nine said:
Buck used bass as his example fish because he felt they reacted most dramatically to weather and water conditions and exemplified local and seasonal movement patterns, but he always said if any other species "got in the way" so much the better. For example, in "Spoonplugging" he covers salmon fishing on the Great Lakes. He also enjoyed saltwater fishing, but his approach was always the same. These northern fisheries where bass aren't the top predator became a somewhat controversial issue when the Lindner's and In-Fisherman capitalized on the fact that in some waters, bass couldn't really follow this deep water behavior. Still in other waters they are out there mixed in as you state. I think Buck would just say 'catch them all!'
-T9
Years ago spoonplugging was somewhat popular on the Great Lakes, not only for salmon, but for, smallmouth and pike. The thought process was to use spoonplugging as a location tool only, and once the fish are found, to switch gears and cast or jig for them.
Aside from having the correct boat and equipment, Fishing structure on the Great Lakes, and in my case Lake Michigan, is no different than fishing structure on a 300 acre lake. It just takes a little longer to get from spot to spot
"hamma" reply :
Tidal fishing is a entity all its own, Catt had it right when he stated Bass are controlled by the tide. They are in fact "reacting" to their environment and its daily changes. Current can be considered structure in some cases, and bass will use a current break just as any other salty fish does in the ocean. Its like a buffet, at times forcing forage right to them.
Dypsis's "spot" held fish at certain times as, when the tide moves in and out so do bass. They move "in" when the tide is rising, and "out" when its falling. Much like a reservoirs bass will do as water rises and falls. But,..this movement is taking place twice a day in each direction. Bass will gravitate to the best spot in a tidal river to ease the amount of actual ground they will have to cover. Also referred to as the best "structure" and the available cover on said structure is what you will catch the bass off of, be it a tree, boulders, seawall, logjam etc. Dypsis's deeper water to shallow was the drop, or structure, the cover being the trees. This "spot" could also be just a temporary holdover spot in a highway the bass use to migrate on during a certain depth in the tide, moving to another as the tide receeds etc.
Typically on tidal rivers the best "structure" will be the biggest and most profound point, or a gigantic flat that has the channel beside it, or a huge but sharp turn in the river, creating a deep channel on the outside bends and shallow flats on the inside turns.
The key to the tidal question is finding the proper and prolific cover on said areas. Usually a grassbed, or waterchestnut, Hard cover will hold bass to, but usually only for a shorter period of time, unless it harbors deep water at dead low tide..
Bass will also have a abundance of forage to choose from in a tidal river, the options are endless, usually its a match the hatch type deal. The wary angler will seek out what the river is offering at that time for prolific forage.,... could be herring, or shad, or even crabs, elvers are a option at a certain time of year as well. Pinpointing what the river is holding, and mimicing that forage will put you in the fish gods good graces, but dont ever negate a jig and pig in a tidal river. The upper freshwater will have crayfish all the way down thru brackish water, and we all know how bass feel towards the protein rich crayfish.
Tidal rivers are a different animal, understanding it's quirks, the tides movements, and variations of its movements, key areas, and best covers is just a small portion of their allure. The tidal bass are tough, and strong, like a river bass, as they have a constantly changing current to deal with 24/7, 4 changes every day. If you can follow the clues a tidal river can be a great place to fish, offering a changing environment that must be adhered to. Creating angling opportunities that a lake just doesnt have. Most tidal anglers will have a routine they follow religiously, known areas that at certain tides hold bass, can be miles apart or just around the bend, and at the incoming, and outgoing tides they may not be the same, or may be. And the "may be's" can and usually are the best areas.
One thing about tides is this, not all tides are the same, some days high tide may come up say ten feet on a cement seawall, but a couple weeks away? it may come up that same wall fifteen feet, and the same goes for out going tides as well,.. thats why the biggest and most profound structure on a tidal river is usually a good bet. Bass are lazy!
trick worms reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 3:07 AM, Catt said:
Most anglers look for a pattern within a parrtern...I want the sweet spot on structure... Honey Hole!
This one is usually under 4-6'
Would this be consider a hump? My lake is lowered right now and I found something that looks exactly like this minus the timber on top
Catt reply :
On 1/9/2017 at 2:34 AM, trick worms said:Would this be consider a hump? My lake is lowered right now and I found something that looks exactly like this minus the timber on top
It's two humps on top of a shallow flat with a creek channel running in front of it that turns behind the second hump.
Produced three double digit bass so far
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/6/2017 at 3:07 AM, Catt said:
Most anglers look for a pattern within a parrtern...I want the sweet spot on structure... Honey Hole!
This one is usually under 4-6'
Catt, are you able to show us that on a 2D map? Maybe screenshot and erase telltale location info that might expose your spot to the public? In not, entirely understandable.
Catt reply :
On 1/10/2017 at 12:00 AM, Paul Roberts said:Catt, are you able to show us that on a 2D map? Maybe screenshot and erase telltale location info that might expose your spot to the public? In not, entirely understandable.
If I could figure out how I would!
J Francho reply :
Show me on the map where the bass hurt your ego
Paul Roberts reply :
On 1/10/2017 at 12:15 AM, Catt said:
If I could figure out how I would!
No kids/grandkids around? My son has been my Tech for some time now. 
Mebbe a sketch?
Thought it would be interesting to see how you interpret such a spot, and... where those bass boosted and hurt your ego.
Catt reply :
On 1/10/2017 at 12:55 AM, Paul Roberts said:No kids/grandkids around? My son has been my Tech for some time now.
Thought it would be interesting to see how you interpret such a spot, and... where those bass boosted and hurt your ego.
Because pictures can be deceiving those two humps are quite some distance apart. With down/side imaging I don't think you could get them in a single image.
When these humps are under 4-6' of water the top of the flat 10-12' deep, the creek channel drops to 18-20'.
On most maps/imaging the flat shows up but not the humps, I found them almost by accident, the first time ever in that area the water was 1' above the humps.
Paul that structure always held big bass (6-9 lbs) but it took me several years to boat a 10. Makes me wonder where they always there or did I fish it long enough for the 7-9s to reach DD status?
riverbasser reply :
Sounds like a sweet spot Catt. Not only does it hold big bass but most people will never find it if it ain't on a screen showing em.
Robeng reply :
Great read. Thanks Catt, A-Jay, and ALL.
WRB reply :
I am catching 7 to 9 lb bass where DD's were located 6 years ago, they are not there anymore because the population density is very low now.
Catt's spot, he has referenced this photo several times, looks good with 2 humps, creek channel and timber located off shore. When you look at a TB map it's full of humps!
Tom
slonezp reply :
On 1/10/2017 at 1:20 AM, Catt said:
Because pictures can be deceiving those two humps are quite some distance apart. With down/side imaging I don't think you could get them in a single image.
When these humps are under 4-6' of water the top of the flat 10-12' deep, the creek channel drops to 18-20'.
On most maps/imaging the flat shows up but not the humps, I found them almost by accident, the first time ever in that area the water was 1' above the humps.
There's a guy in Wisconsin who has started mapping local musky lakes based off side and down imaging returns. He offers a subscription product for your computer and mobile devices. It's based off the online maps and defaults to Bing Maps. His information allows you to layer bottom structure based on bottom composition, rock outcroppings, weeds and the "hump on a hump", has fish cribs and all the underwater timber mapped in the lake, GPS coordinates, the ability to determine how large the structure is etc. The ability to print the maps as well. Neat stuff. 2 problems, He currently only has 10 lakes completed and secondly, if no cell service is available the product doesn't work (and where these lakes are located, the service is limited at best)
As far as I know, all the current offerings are based on 2d returns. The potential of this guys product is huge.
RoLo reply :
On 1/10/2017 at 7:50 AM, slonezp said:There's a guy in Wisconsin who has started mapping local musky lakes based off side and down imaging returns. He offers a subscription product for your computer and mobile devices. It's based off the online maps and defaults to Bing Maps. His information allows you to layer bottom structure based on bottom composition, rock outcroppings, weeds and the "hump on a hump", has fish cribs and all the underwater timber mapped in the lake, GPS coordinates, the ability to determine how large the structure is etc. The ability to print the maps as well. Neat stuff. 2 problems, He currently only has 10 lakes completed and secondly, if no cell service is available the product doesn't work (and where these lakes are located, the service is limited at best)
As far as I know, all the current offerings are based on 2d returns. The potential of this guys product is huge.
Unless you create your own charts (which I do, but it takes forever), that's definitely the wave of the future.
'Community Edits' sponsored by Navionics is on the same page. It's Navionics way of improving chart accuracy
without investing in cartographers. On the upside though, all Navionics users benefit
from the edits without charge.
Even though I update my Navionics Plus SD card before every outing, I rarely notice a meaningful improvement,
even on popular waters like Lake Kissimmee. That would be okay if their charts were beyond reproach,
but chart accuracy in many areas is laughable. I'm confident though that we're on the cusp
of rapid improvement (I hope).
Roger
WRB reply :
Way off topic, Navionics has an app that works with wifi electronics to make real time mapping.
Tom
reerok reply :
Is there a more valuable discussion anywhere? I'd be happy to ever find one. Thanks Catt and all the contributors.
Another slightly OT thought: I enjoy watching MLF given its long form model and watching a small group of pros plan, approach, adapt, adjust, and panic. Having recently read BP's "Spoonplugging" and Murphy's "In Pursuit..." it's given me a new perspective as I watch the show. The thing is - what I'm seeing is somewhat troubling. These guys will talk about structure very VERY briefly and almost always first thing in the morning. They'll find what they believe to be a good deep point or bridge piling or something else and start there. But almost invariably they all end up target fishing a bank or docks/marina. Now my (mis)perception could easily be due to the slick editing of the show and them cutting the bits about the guys stating why they are fishing the shallow cover that they choose, but if I didn't know any better (which I didn't until I read the above books and posts here on this site) I would assume that to be a successful professional fisherman all I have to do is flip, crank, or whopper plopper a shoreline. I emphatically know that not to be true.
So my question is: Are these pros really just haphazardly beating the banks of lakes they're dropped on or are they putting to use all of the knowledge that is being shared here in this thread and only focusing on shallow cover that is associated with the breaks, breaklines, and deep water BP and Murphy and Catt and others talk about?
Thanks again.
Catt reply :
When the subject of structure fishing comes up many people incorrectly assume we are referring to deep water fishing this is partially untrue. It doesn't matter if you are fishing bank shallow or 40' deep your are fishing structure, that is if you are catching fish.
There are tournaments won on shoreline structure & there are tournaments won on offshore structure.
Paul Roberts reply :
Some thoughts:
I suppose it depends on the water body. But also, BP, and BM (Murphy) were not tournament anglers. BP was a troller (for the most part) and BM was a big fish only guy and fishing deep CA waters.
MLF scores the most scorable bass. A bunch of little ones can be tough to beat.
As Catt mentions, certainly the anglers are aware of structural elements. The difference between many weekend Joe's and the pros is that the Joe's are more likely to fish shoreline objects without relation to larger structural elements. Pros are apt to consider larger scale structural elements at the get-go. They then fish the shallow objects. If fish are shallow, it's often quicker to catch them than deeper.
I do remember one MLF in which Shaw Grigsby went deep to drop-shot a bunch of smallies in very clear water. I was impressed by how easily he shifted back and forth from shallow to deep options.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 12:22 AM, reerok said:Is there a more valuable discussion anywhere? I'd be happy to ever find one. Thanks Catt and all the contributors.
Another slightly OT thought: I enjoy watching MLF given its long form model and watching a small group of pros plan, approach, adapt, adjust, and panic. Having recently read BP's "Spoonplugging" and Murphy's "In Pursuit..." it's given me a new perspective as I watch the show. The thing is - what I'm seeing is somewhat troubling. These guys will talk about structure very VERY briefly and almost always first thing in the morning. They'll find what they believe to be a good deep point or bridge piling or something else and start there. But almost invariably they all end up target fishing a bank or docks/marina. Now my (mis)perception could easily be due to the slick editing of the show and them cutting the bits about the guys stating why they are fishing the shallow cover that they choose, but if I didn't know any better (which I didn't until I read the above books and posts here on this site) I would assume that to be a successful professional fisherman all I have to do is flip, crank, or whopper plopper a shoreline. I emphatically know that not to be true.
So my question is: Are these pros really just haphazardly beating the banks of lakes they're dropped on or are they putting to use all of the knowledge that is being shared here in this thread and only focusing on shallow cover that is associated with the breaks, breaklines, and deep water BP and Murphy and Catt and others talk about?
Thanks again.
I'm also a fan of MLF. If you have the ability to pause live TV, do so when they show the lake map and where all the anglers are. Now its way zoomed out but it does have contour lines. If you look at it, even from a broad view you can tell they are fishing structure. They also study the lake maps just before launch and then have to quickly decide and evaluate the structure and cover situations on there 15 min ride around.
Its not a good show to try to copy because as you said everything is rushed and there is a lot of stuff not shown. The pros are also probably a little too stressed to explain things how we might like them too
reerok reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 12:33 AM, Catt said:When the subject of structure fishing comes up many people incorrectly assume we are referring to deep water fishing this is partially untrue. It doesn't matter if you are fishing bank shallow or 40' deep your are fishing structure, that is if you are catching fish.
There are tournaments won on shoreline structure & there are tournaments won on offshore structure.
I apologize if you understood me to imply that these pros should be fishing only deep (8-10+) water (as if that's only where the structure lies). I know that isn't the case.
What I meant was this: Are they fishing the shallow shoreline BECAUSE it's associated with the type of structure needed to hold bass (including access to "deeper" water) or are they just randomly fishing banks as it can sometimes appear on TV?
As was answered, these guys know what they're doing and know what structural elements lead them to successful target fishing. We just don't get to see them explain that. I sure wish we did.
Thanks!
On 1/11/2017 at 12:40 AM, riverbasser said:I'm also a fan of MLF. If you have the ability to pause live TV, do so when they show the lake map and where all the anglers are. Now its way zoomed out but it does have contour lines. If you look at it, even from a broad view you can tell they are fishing structure. They also study the lake maps just before launch and then have to quickly decide and evaluate the structure and cover situations on there 15 min ride around.
Its not a good show to try to copy because as you said everything is rushed and there is a lot of stuff not shown. The pros are also probably a little too stressed to explain things how we might like them too
That's a good idea on pausing the TV when they show the map. I haven't tried that. It seems like this new season is showing less of the map than they used to but I'll keep an eye out for it.
I feel like sometimes you see the last place guys spin out and look like I can on a tough day: lost, confused, and totally unsure what to try next. But the top guys seem to always have something in mind, a plan b, c, d, etc. I wish we could hear them think and explain why the go where they go and fish how they fish.
riverbasser reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 12:48 AM, reerok said:I apologize if you understood me to imply that these pros should be fishing only deep (8-10+) water (as if that's only where the structure lies). I know that isn't the case.
What I meant was this: Are they fishing the shallow shoreline BECAUSE it's associated with the type of structure needed to hold bass (including access to "deeper" water) or are they just randomly fishing banks as it can sometimes appear on TV?
As was answered, these guys know what they're doing and know what structural elements lead them to successful target fishing. We just don't get to see them explain that. I sure wish we did.
Thanks!
That's a good idea on pausing the TV when they show the map. I haven't tried that. It seems like this new season is showing less of the map than they used to but I'll keep an eye out for it.
I feel like sometimes you see the last place guys spin out and look like I can on a tough day: lost, confused, and totally unsure what to try next. But the top guys seem to always have something in mind, a plan b, c, d, etc. I wish we could hear them think and explain why the go where they go and fish how they fish.
Idk if you saw it or not but just before Christmas they had a "winning ways" episode that showed how 6 of the top finishers won their round. They showed the technique, bait and pattern on a similar lake. It was interesting to watch
Catt reply :
I promise you they aint "randomly" fishing anything!
RoLo reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 12:48 AM, reerok said:
What I meant was this: Are they fishing the shallow shoreline BECAUSE it's associated with the type of structure needed to hold bass (including access to "deeper" water) or are they just randomly fishing banks as it can sometimes appear on TV?
Depending on the lake classification and seasonal period, the shoreline is often the high-percentage area.
Actually, the presence or absence of structure is unrelated to the angler’s distance from shore.
Furthermore, you can fish surgically along the shoreline, and you can fish randomly offshore.
Roger
WRB reply :
MLF formate is geared for catching numbers of keeper size bass because the quantity of bass is unlimited, time is the key factor. The MLF anglers don't have advanced notice to where they are going to be fishing therefore can't study the lake or lake zone before launching and only get 15 minutes to study thier GPS and make a quick run to whatever area interest them to determine a starting point based on past experiences, aquatic weeds, docks, water temps and color to confirm what they see on the sonar unit. If the contestant is unfamiliar with the lake they may not know what type of bass to target.
Structure is the 1st thing they look at on the map, then they try to determine what depth to start at based on breaks located at high % spots that support their primary skill set.
Structure, breaks, cover types and seasonal periods are factored in the 1st 15 minutes and then adjustments made as they fish by eliminating unproductive water quickly.
Everything Catt has talked about is being considered by the MLF pro... under a lot of pressure to catch bass quickly.
We can take our time, study maps, know where we are going to fish and what type of bass we plan to catch on tackle put together before we launch and go fishing. Lesson learned with MLF is be versitile and make adjustments quickly if you want to catch numbers of bass.
Tom
J Francho reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 1:49 AM, RoLo said:Furthermore, you can fish surgically along the shoreline, and you can fish randomly offshore.
This is an interesting point. In order for me to get my pea brain around offshore bass holding structure, especially on Lake Ontario, where it seems like there is none. I literally treat one the 15' to 30' depth contour as shoreline, ignoring what's shallower. Just pick a depth, and make it your new shoreline. It helps if you have an idea about how deep fish are that time of year. 20/25/30 seem to be right. This helps me target fish holding structures in the key 35-45' zone better.
WRB reply :
Over 90% of my bass fishing is in deep rocky structured lakes, everyone of those lakes has a shoreline, all lakes do! Can I catch bass in 1' to 3' of water along the shoreline, yes! I also catch bass in 30' to 40' along the shoreline or off shore or anywhere inbetween. Because our deep structure lakes fluctuate in depth month to month or year to year both the shoreline and outside structure is constantly changing, it can be 30' underwater or 30' above water, but the bass are always at their preferred depth! My 1st concern is how deep are the bass located, then I determine where to start fishing based on all the factors I can gather up like water temps and color, preferred bait type and seasonal periods. Bass fishing is always a guessing game where to start fishing and with what may work, it's what makes our sport fun.
Tom
roadwarrior reply :
On the Tennessee River current trumps everything. Next is depth. Although you will often find bass scattered shallow, for the most part ALL the fish are at a certain depth (range) on any given day. For whatever reason the two most common depths are ~8' or ~19'. Go figure...
TnRiver46 reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 2:31 AM, roadwarrior said:On the Tennessee River current trumps everything. Next is depth. Although you will often find bass scattered shallow, for the most part ALL the fish are at a certain depth (range) on any given day. For whatever reason the two most common depths are ~8' or ~19'. Go figure...
19' is my favorite!!!! Funny you would say that
Catt reply :
Structure starts at the shoreline & ends at the bottom of the deepest water!
What appears to be random...aint
bagofdonuts reply :
That's interesting. There's a similar trend here on the arkansas river. Bass that are relating to current(i.e. not spawning in the backwaters) will be at 5' or 12'. My theory is that depth also creates a current break, water in the middle of the water column is moving the fastest and there are breaks in the current speed at those depths.
J Francho reply :
Structure underneath current creates current breaks. Anyone that has spent time stream fishing for trout will have learned to "read" the water. What the water does on the surface gives you clues to what's below the surface. For instance, a deep ledge - a major fish holding feature, regardless of species, can be traced in current by seeing the seam created at the surface. Again, this all relates to structure, though not commonly mentioned since we *usually* fish for largemouth where there is very little current. Smallies, in my experience can be a bit different. They are less territorial, and while bound to structural patterns, a little more fickle in their location, from day to day. Smallie hotspots come and go, but like Catt's example above, good largemouth spots always seem to have some fish.
WRB reply :
Current can be visual faster directional moving water as evidenced by riffles, swirels, eddies, aquatic plants laying in one direction, debris drifting in one direction or changes in water color. We think of current as a river with rapid and whitewater or fast moving water with lots of surface disturbances but lake current is usually more subtle. Current breaks are seams in the water flow that create little water movement while faster and slower moving water come together. Structure that upsets the flow of water creates breaks by changing the water flow direction, obvious in faster moving water.
In lakes or man made impoundments dam or power plants create current by water movement through turbines. Wind also creates water movement and current, structure has the same affect regardless what created water to move over or past it. Even slight current affects how bass relate to structure and overlooked by most bass anglers.
Drifting phytoplankton moves with current and the Threadfin Shad follow feeding on the plankton, the predators then feed on the Shad, structure or current breaks is where all this comes together.
Tom
slonezp reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 2:31 AM, roadwarrior said:On the Tennessee River current trumps everything. Next is depth. Although you will often find bass scattered shallow, for the most part ALL the fish are at a certain depth (range) on any given day. For whatever reason the two most common depths are ~8' or ~19'. Go figure...
Back in 2012 I fished a tournament on G'Ville. I met up with BR member zip pow who lives in Guntersville. One of the things he did was give me the number to the power company to see what time of day they would be generating electricity.
My home water is a mud hole soup bowl river system with an average depth of around 5ft. and max depth of 30ft. It's much easier to fish when the water is high because the fish are more predictable. I also fish the Wisconsin River quite a bit. When the current is what I would call dangerously fast (average flow is 7,000 fps and the most I've fished is 17,000 fps)Catching walleye is like shooting fish in a barrel. Structure is key to fishing current because the fish will stack up in the breaks.
Team9nine reply :
On 1/11/2017 at 12:22 AM, reerok said:Another slightly OT thought: I enjoy watching MLF given its long form model and watching a small group of pros plan, approach, adapt, adjust, and panic. Having recently read BP's "Spoonplugging" and Murphy's "In Pursuit..." it's given me a new perspective as I watch the show. The thing is - what I'm seeing is somewhat troubling. These guys will talk about structure very VERY briefly and almost always first thing in the morning. They'll find what they believe to be a good deep point or bridge piling or something else and start there. But almost invariably they all end up target fishing a bank or docks/marina. Now my (mis)perception could easily be due to the slick editing of the show and them cutting the bits about the guys stating why they are fishing the shallow cover that they choose, but if I didn't know any better (which I didn't until I read the above books and posts here on this site) I would assume that to be a successful professional fisherman all I have to do is flip, crank, or whopper plopper a shoreline. I emphatically know that not to be true.
So my question is: Are these pros really just haphazardly beating the banks of lakes they're dropped on or are they putting to use all of the knowledge that is being shared here in this thread and only focusing on shallow cover that is associated with the breaks, breaklines, and deep water BP and Murphy and Catt and others talk about?
Watched the MLF Selects today and thought of your post. Doesn't answer your specific question, but I thought Mark Rose's comments on the subject of fishing out deep versus "beating the bank" in this format were interesting. He was getting pummeled early, but made a nice comeback in the latter half of the event.
Quote
MLF Select pro Mark Rose knows all too well how the high-risk offshore search for a “mother lode” goes in the MLF format.
“Trust me, it usually does not pan out very well,” said Rose, who is highly regarded as one of the best offshore structure fishermen on tour.
“I’ve tried it several times in this format,” Rose recalled. “You say to yourself you’re going to stick to it no matter what, but when that Scoretracker starts lighting up, it does something to you. It rushes you; it pushes you. You’re out there idling around without a bait in the water and the whole time your official is saying, ‘This guy just caught another bass. And that guy just caught another bass.’ I’m telling you it messes with your head and staying committed to the graphing game when that’s happening is really, really hard to do.”
Rose’s plan for the morning was to graph offshore during the ride through period. But if he did not see anything promising on his electronics, he would hit the bank for the official “lines in” call. “I’ve spent time graphing during the first period and I just got behind too far too fast because guys on the bank catch four or five up shallow in the first 30 minutes,” Rose said. “I know it’s June; I know the water is warm; I know fish should be offshore, but it takes a lot of time to find good offshore spots on an unfamiliar lake – sometimes days. The chances of finding something like that in an hour are just really slim.”
riverbasser reply :
Good point team99. It makes plenty of sense.
BTW did you catch Poche tying on that rat after the first period to throw the other guys off? Too funny!
gripnrip reply :
Well, well, well. I'm glad I finally took the time to read this little gem. I work graveyard and it went well with my cup off coffee. All I can say is thanks for this thread, Catt. Being a new boater my problem has been finding the fish. I have a mentor helping me out but this thread has given me a mindset where now I can put something together on my own. Much appreciated.
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.