Alright Deep, Let's Talk Structure!

[Don't Tell The Wife]

This thread is great. Thank you guys for imparting all the wisdom. I have a few books on the way and can tell I am going to learn a lot!

[deep]

This is what I meant about the lack of cover.

 

What you see below is the tip of a very productive point close to the main creek channel. Lake was about 17 feet low when the pic was taken, the main creek channel is about 30-40 yards further out into the water. There are a couple of scrawny tree stumps near the tip, and that's it as far as cover is concerned.

 

[Catt]

Ok y'all I aint done with that roadbed!

deep has a roadbed mostly in 30' with a bridge crossing at 60'.

Cover is rocks, timber, & what else deep?

You stated this roadbed intersects with "a couple" other structures?

[deep]

Isolated boulders and a few tree stumps, that's it.

 

I did mention "a couple" other structures. Now that I think of it, there are at least three. The main creek channel is the obvious one.

 

There's a steep "pocket" cut into the shoreline- probably when the lake was impounded. Drops sharply into the roadbed.

 

The third is a line of staggered boulders leading to the main creek after the road crossed the said bridge. Very close to the intersection of the road and the main creek channel.

 

 

There's an (what I call) one-dimenstional dropoff between the pocket and the line of boulders. Looks like this.

 

 

 

Here's a rough sketch of the area. The point is the same one I alluded to earlier, and also posted a low water pic of.

 

[Catt]

Ya aint catching on Carolina Rigs, Drop Shots, or Deep Cranks?

That's classic structure right there!

[deep]

A few on slip shot rigs, a few on jigs, a bunch on 8" hudds, a bunch more on jerkbaits and topwaters (small and big).

 

 

I have caught them on bottom-bumping baits in 30 FOW, just not here.

[Don't Tell The Wife]

Deep any chance you can describe that picture a bit?  Not sure If I am seeing the whole thing or not but the items you guys are talking about are not exactly clear for me. 

[Catt]

Oh sure throw a sketch in there when I aint looking!

I would fish that whole area from every direction, slow & mythodically until I find a pattern.

That spot has everything

[deep]

Oh sure throw a sketch in there when I aint looking!

I would fish that whole area from every direction, slow & mythodically until I find a pattern.

That spot has everything

 

But wait, there's even more. A bottom composition change to the left of the line of boulders. The point itself, and two depressions on either side, pull double duty as spawning grounds.

 

What this pattern deal? I'm happy to catch just one fish every week if it's of the right size. Now if y'all could help me catch one every trip, I'll start calling myself the Mike Long of the east coast.

 

Jokes apart, tell us more about "patterning". I thought part of it was focusing on similar structures that hold fish on a given day, and eliminating others.

[deep]

Deep any chance you can describe that picture a bit?  Not sure If I am seeing the whole thing or not but the items you guys are talking about are not exactly clear for me. 

 

If you could tell me what I could elaborate on, maybe I can try and complete the picture!

 

Are you familiar with the term "cut"? What I call a "pocket" can be thought of as a tiny cove without a real feeder creek channel.

 

Most useful structures break in two or three directions. The dropoff to the right of the pocket runs straight without any significant twists or turns.

 

I'd post a topo map, if I had one. Unfortunately I do not. It took me a lot of time pouring over old aerial photos, some from before impoundment, walking the banks during low water levels, and dragging the bottom to get to the understanding I now have of the fishery. And it's far from complete.

 

Doesn't anyone think it's strange there's no cove on either side of the point? It's the truth. The point isn't apparent at all at full pool, but there's a depression on either side.

[VolFan]

Your point I'd probably a former ridge that was cut through for the road, and they probably took some off the top for fill dirt. If they're spawning on the point, they're feeding someplace close. I'd love a wind from the top left into the inside corner of the point, blowing food through between the point and hump. That saddle would be the spot within the spot for me, unless there's still some stumps or boulders on the hump. Nice area though

[Team9nine]

Just a first thought on the areas I'd focus on from your map. Obviously missing things like depths, exact bottom conditions, etc., so take with a grain of salt. Bottom line looks like 3 distinct areas of focus to me. As for your other picture showing the point and lack of cover - nice hard bottom (clay?) with scattered rock/gravel from the looks of it. While I can't determine exact size of the larger rocks/boulders in the picture, don't overlook them as key "breaks" on that spot, along with any bottom transition areas possibly off to the side. Mike Long did a great piece where he took a replica of his 22# bass and held it up or placed it next to some rocks/boulders during a low water period on one of his CA lakes. His point was to remind you that it doesn't take an extremely large piece of cover to provide a big bass a significant break to relate to. Buck would state it as what seems insignificant to you might look like a mountain to a fish from his perspective. 

 

-T9

 

[Don't Tell The Wife]

If you could tell me what I could elaborate on, maybe I can try and complete the picture!

I am with you on the terminology but I think I am confused with the two pictures. The hand drawing I get and like what T9 did to further illustrate his 3 areas. The part I can't figure out is where all of this is at in the very first picture you posted. Is that a creek on the right running from top to bottom and a road coming from right to left in the middle?

Sorry if I am completely missing it. Just trying to figure it out so all the comments can be tied to the picture.

[deep]

I am with you on the terminology but I think I am confused with the two pictures. The hand drawing I get and like what T9 did to further illustrate his 3 areas. The part I can't figure out is where all of this is at in the very first picture you posted. Is that a creek on the right running from top to bottom and a road coming from right to left in the middle?

Sorry if I am completely missing it. Just trying to figure it out so all the comments can be tied to the picture.

 

my mistake, sorry for the croppings.

 

Post 47: The roadbed you can see. The main creek is towards you, not visible in the photo. The 1-D dropoff starts near the left edge of the photo. You're looking towards north in this photo.

 

Post 54: You're looking south. Main creek is ahead of you, and the roadbed on the other side of it.

 

Post 56: In the photo of this 1-D dropoff, you looking north-east(ish). Pocket is at the right edge. Line of boulders is to the left, and not visible. In the sketch, you're looking south.

 

Hope that clears things a little? Let me know,

[deep]

Just a first thought on the areas I'd focus on from your map. Obviously missing things like depths, exact bottom conditions, etc., so take with a grain of salt. Bottom line looks like 3 distinct areas of focus to me. As for your other picture showing the point and lack of cover - nice hard bottom (clay?) with scattered rock/gravel from the looks of it. While I can't determine exact size of the larger rocks/boulders in the picture, don't overlook them as key "breaks" on that spot, along with any bottom transition areas possibly off to the side. Mike Long did a great piece where he took a replica of his 22# bass and held it up or placed it next to some rocks/boulders during a low water period on one of his CA lakes. His point was to remind you that it doesn't take an extremely large piece of cover to provide a big bass a significant break to relate to. Buck would state it as what seems insignificant to you might look like a mountain to a fish from his perspective. 

 

-T9

 

picture.jpg

 

 

Yes Sir, that's how I've been catching them. At least that's the general idea. Find the sanctuaries, and then the lead-ins (breaklines?) to the best shallows.

 

One edge of the point is better than the other. I don't know why.

 

Bill Murphy calls them "subliminal" areas.

 

 

EDIT: Yes, the big rocks have yielded a few fish too. I do best off the sides, along the edges/ contours lines.

[Paul Roberts]

What's the forage?

[Don't Tell The Wife]

That makes more sense now. Thank you sir!

[deep]

What's the forage?

 

Bluegills, stocker trouts, crawfish. I guess baby bass and crappies as well.

 

Stockers seem to have this habit of swimming only a few feet down in the water column. That (probably) is one of the reasons I can catch bigger fish* shallow over deeper structure (near breaks).

 

 

* NLMB largemouth

[Paul Roberts]

I assume you are after large bass. Does the lake have a strong popn of large bass? Are there fisheries surveys available to you?

[deep]

Paul, yes, and no; respectively.

 

It's not really about me though. I have found out- mostly through trial and error, like I said- what works. Maybe even a little about the why's.

[RoLo]

Buck would state that what seems insignificant to you, might look like a mountain from the fish's perspective. 

-T9

 

That statement can't be over-emphasized, and is especially true in flat, saucer-like natural lakes.

The distance between the back-line and belly-line of a ten-pound is about 7 inches, but they'll settle for half that step.

 

In 2012, Ish Monroe won the Bassmaster Elite on Lake Okeechobee. He found pay dirt in Pelican Bay,

which the casual observer would describe as featureless. When asked what he found in Pelican Bay,

Ish replied that he adhered to a wrinkle in the bottom that was just a few inches high.

 

Experiments made with completely featureless bottoms with nothing more than a change in color

found that bass tended to spend more time along the color breakline. Things that make you go 'Hmmm'.

 

Roger

[Catt]

Rolo, that is why I've often said "All Lakes Have It!"

Oh yea, so do ponds, creeks, marshes, rivers you name it.

[RoLo]

Another example of covert structure:

In 2013, I watched Major League Fishing on Lake Istokpoga, Florida.

Istokpoga is another 'seemingly' featureless lake, and Marty Stone said something to the effect that

the pros are degrading the importance of drop-offs and bottom contour, because there isn't any on Istokpoga.

I'm sure that statement caused a lot of throat-clearing in the ranks.  At one point, Chris Lane jumped ahead

in the standings by pulling a couple good bass from the same spot. Chris was asked why he caught

those bass at one spot and not in similar spots. Chris said,  I don't know, they look exactly the same.         

I think he knew

 

In a "featureless" lake, bottom contour and structure become even "more" important, not less important.

They require closer inspection, because it's usually some small difference that separates the blue ribbon

from the red ribbon. Ish Monroe won on the Big-O because he discovered a minor bottom wrinkle,

while Chris Lane jumped in standings by working a merger of bulrushes and maidencane. Very often,

a break in plant species that's visible to the angler, will disclose a breakline of soil types not visible to the angler.

 

Roger

[senile1]

It could be that Ish may have discovered the congregation of fish first, and then noticed the wrinkle that was attracting them afterward.  These small structural elements can be difficult to locate, especially in deep water, without a keen eye on your side imaging, or something else giving them away (as demonstrated by the bulrush/maidencane example from Roger above).  Without the combination of side imaging, down imaging, and regular sonar in deep water they can be located as well, but the difficulty and time involved in locating the molehills, that are mountains to fish, increases exponentially.  Still, without these discoveries, no matter the tools used, a lot of us anglers are missing the fish. 

 

This has been better than most structure threads.  I didn't see this thread until a couple of days ago so I don't have much to add.  I do want to compliment everyone on the inclusion of specifics.  So often these threads are made up of generalities which are good to know, but which aren't much help to newer anglers without knowing how to specifically apply them.  This especially applies to large lakes where the small lake angler can feel completely lost when he or she first attempts to fish there.  Roger's post about 50 - 100 mile stretches of Lake Superior holding no Pike provides an important detail about fish holding water.  I'm sure a lot of us can think of times we fished unproductive water before learning enough to avoid making those mistakes.

[roadwarrior]

Well, here is a specific example on Pickwick: A major cove that has constant flow from both run-off 

and most importantly, a coldwater spring. The cove and underwater creek bed is located just off the

main channel of the Tennessee River. The mouth of the cove is deep on one side, but the other is

a large pea gravel flat approximately 4'-8' deep dropping into 25' or more.

 

Every species of fish in this river system can be found on or around this flat with constant restocking

from the main lake and cove. Oddly, the fish are either there in numbers or they not at all. One stop

is never enough, the fish may reappear at any time.

 

A few years ago I was fishing with Dinky at the BassResource RoadTrip. We both caught a lot of fish,

but this was my biggest day ever in terms of numbers, 78 bass! Dinky caught most of his on a Red Eye

Shad, mine were caught on the Sworming Hornet/ LFT Live Magic Shad.