Is Cover More Important Than Structure?

[DocNsanE]

Hi!

 

 The topic covers my question. In the end I'm sure you'll tell me that cover on structure is the real money. But from my experience last summer on a lake I frequently fish, cover seemed to be the most important thing. There's a rather large bed of healthy weeds sitting on a slowly sloping bank between 8' and 15' of water that was always stacked with fish, yet there's nothing interesting in the structure at this point. Where as I found other areas with points, drop offs, ledges that would hold fish on occasion but were not as consistent.

 

 Is it just because the first weedbed I mentioned is likely home to many bass where as the structural areas are more likely routes the bass use to go from one area to another?

 

 I feel more confident that I'll find fish in an area with cover but little structure than if I find structure that has no cover.

[Wayne P.]

Structure is the bottom from the shore to the deepest depth.

 

On structure you can have cover, breaks, breaklines, points, and humps.

 

A qA weed edge is a break, a thermocline is a break.

 

Ledges are breaks, dropoffs are breaks,

 

Fish relate to noticable changes in depth and use them as highways just like you do to go from location to location unless they are relating to suspended food.

[Catt]

There's a rather large bed of healthy weeds sitting on a slowly sloping bank between 8' and 15' of water that was always stacked with fish, yet there's nothing interesting in the structure at this point.

Structure comes in many forms

[geo g]

COVER DOES SOMETHING THAT STRUCTURE CAN NOT. iT PRODUCES o2 WHICH FISH TARGET AS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR IN THEIR LIVES.

[senile1]

Your weedbed is on a structure.  As a slowly sloping bank, it just wasn't the structure you expected or have read about as being optimum.  Other factors may be affecting why you find most of your bass in this weed bed too.  I see you are in Canada.  Could it be that the lake in question contains other predator species such as Pike?  If so, this could lead the bass to stay in a shallower hiding place to avoid these larger predators.

 

Also, does your weedbed on the slowly sloping bank connect to the more classic structures you mentioned in some way.  Is there a break on one of those structures that extends over to the slowly sloping bank on the weedbed?

[EmersonFish]

First of all, you are right, and we are lucky that we never have to choose between cover and structure. They go hand in hand. The "slowly sloping bank" you referenced with the weeds on it is structure. The fact that it had weeds (cover) on it distinguished it from other slowly sloping banks, and makes it effective. You are probably less confident on the other structure you mentioned because those areas probably do hold fish that are more transient, as the baitfish are. But once you locate fish in those areas, you can find some tremendous fishing. And even in those areas, you want to look for rock piles, sunken trees, and others features to concentrate on if you can.

Whether cover with very little structure, which I assume, for the purposes of this discussion, the closest example would be a piece of cover in the middle of a flat or slowly sloping bank; versus structure with no cover, which could be a manmade wall or a long, clean ledge or bluff I guess, is more effective? There are a lot of variables of course. Time of year, recent weather, smallmouth or spots vs. largemouth, type of body of water, etc... Being a Missouri guy, fishing deep, clear water reservoirs as I do, I'd lean toward the structure to produce more consistently throughout the year.

[Ozark_Basser]

Whichever one their food relates to the most.

[DocNsanE]

Yeah the lake does have some good pike in it good catch. And yes I'd say at one end of this big patch of grass there's a big crater like hole that goes down to almost 40'. At the other end there's not much there, but another 30 feet away another weed bed picks up and it drops off a little bit more there. Doesn't seem to produce as well in that area but it links to a point further down that has a shallow side and a very steep decline on the other side which again goes down to about 40' over a short distance. I can see how the vegetation might act as a highway of sorts between this structures. I just seem to find them more in the vegetation itself than on those structures.  I guess that may be because they are safer from predators in this thicker cover.

 

Thanks a lot guys for the input, I'll try to keep these things in mind. Sounds like cover doesn't necessarily have to be ON the strucutre, it can be the link between structures as well and be productive.

[RoLo]

The answer to this question is often muddied by semantics. 

For this reason, 'structure' & 'cover' should be defined at the onset, so everyone is on the same page:

 

'Structure' refers to the configuration and composition of the bottom terrain, it's essentially immovable

and relatively permanent. Elements of structure include bottom 'projections' (ridges, bars, humps, reefs ~),

bottom 'depressions' (ditches, potholes, gullies, channels ~), and changes in substrate (clay, sand, loam, silt ~).

On the other hand, 'cover' refers to more portable and more temporary objects that are found upon structure.

There are 3 basic forms of cover: 'weedy' (soft), 'woody' (firm) and 'rocky' (hard).

 

In the grand scheme of things, 'structure' reigns supreme. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to 'always' regard structure

as more influential than cover. Prey fish and predatory fish both seek a similar habitat, a menu that evolves

from natural balance. So what's more important, structure or cover? The answer can vary sharply

from one lake to another lake, but as a rule-of-thumb, the commodity in lowest supply holds the greater worth.

 

Roger

[senile1]

 

. . . . but as a rule-of-thumb, the commodity in lowest supply holds the greater worth.

 

X2

[roadwarrior]

Profound!

 

 

 

 

[lmbfisherman]

Your weedbed is on a structure.  As a slowly sloping bank, it just wasn't the structure you expected or have read about as being optimum.  Other factors may be affecting why you find most of your bass in this weed bed too.  I see you are in Canada.  Could it be that the lake in question contains other predator species such as Pike?  If so, this could lead the bass to stay in a shallower hiding place to avoid these larger predators.

 

Also, does your weedbed on the slowly sloping bank connect to the more classic structures you mentioned in some way.  Is there a break on one of those structures that extends over to the slowly sloping bank on the weedbed?

Actually Pike like weed beds too.  Bass and Pike can co-exist in the same area. 

 

Pretty much others have covered the topic. 

[EmersonFish]

The bottom line is, you may have found a great spot on your local lake, but not because it is indicative of some universal truth that you can apply to lakes in general, or even your own lake all the time, for that matter. I'm not saying look a gift horse in the mouth. Fish that area and catch 'em; but don't lean on it to the exclusion of learning as much as you can about your body of water. You might find a rock pile where a creek channel meets the main channel where you smash 'em. But you're not going to find it pounding that weed bed for the rest of your life.

Most of us who have a home lake have a little "honey hole" we can count on certain times of the year. I try not to be seen fishing mine too much. It will end up being some other cats honey hole before you know it.

[scaleface]

 

Most of us who have a home lake have a little "honey hole" we can count on certain times of the year. I try not to be seen fishing mine too much. It will end up being some other cats honey hole before you know it.

Aint that the truth .

[senile1]

Actually Pike like weed beds too.  Bass and Pike can co-exist in the same area. 

 

Pretty much others have covered the topic. 

 

This is true.  Bluegill and other small fish seem to attempt to use cover as a hiding place from bass as well, though bass like cover as well.  I think smaller fish that are aware of larger predators in their waters feel safer there than in the open water. 

[buzzed bait]

The answer to this question is often muddied by semantics. 

For this reason, 'structure' & 'cover' should be defined at the onset, so everyone is on the same page:

 

'Structure' refers to the configuration and composition of the bottom terrain, it's essentially immovable

and relatively permanent. Elements of structure include bottom 'projections' (ridges, bars, humps, reefs ~),

bottom 'depressions' (ditches, potholes, gullies, channels ~), and changes in substrate (clay, sand, loam, silt ~).

On the other hand, 'cover' refers to more portable and more temporary objects that are found upon structure.

There are 3 basic forms of cover: 'weedy' (soft), 'woody' (firm) and 'rocky' (hard).

 

In the grand scheme of things, 'structure' reigns supreme. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to 'always' regard structure

as more influential than cover. Prey fish and predatory fish both seek a similar habitat, a menu that evolves

from natural balance. So what's more important, structure or cover? The answer can vary sharply

from one lake to another lake, but as a rule-of-thumb, the commodity in lowest supply holds the greater worth.

 

Roger

 

awesome post rolo

[scaleface]

Often I'll been fishing  points with no cover and have little luck. Then the shad move over and the bass seem to appear out of nowhere.

[Ozark_Basser]

You can put as much effort as you want into fishing structure, but its not nearly as important as understanding the forage or, in your case, the fact there are pike in your lake. I would consider the main forage and how they relate to structure or cover along with the population of pike in your lake, then I would start considering if structure or cover is more important.

[F14A-B]

Often I'll been fishing points with no cover and have little luck. Then the shad move over and the bass seem to appear out of nowhere.

That's exactly right.. Find/locate food sources and find & catch fish... It's plain and it's mostly simple.

Ecosystems in Soft cover vegetation, Rocky areas, open water areas, academically, call it what it is, but it's mostly about the food! Timing as to when they will feed is the fun part...

[kingmotorboat]

ive caught bass in open water where nothing appeared interesting. Maybe it was rite place rite time. Maybe there was something there i didnt see

[WRB]

The bass related to the aquatic cover for a reason...prey. The cover provided your bass with food.

Aquatic weeds are rarely a year around form of cover in the north, structure on the other hand is always there and most types weeds grow in some form of soil. Where are the bass when the cover isn't available? Answer; near structure, not where the featureless sloping bank is located, unless something attracts prey.

Tom