Ideal Bottom Type?

[Captain America]

Hey guys, 

I am wondering if there are any bottom types (like sand, peat, muck, marl, rocks etc..) that bass prefer, or generally avoid. Is there an ideal bottom type? Or an undesirable bottom one? Does it really matter? Also, I see on maps a distinction between muck and peat. To me they seem like the same thing... Do bass relate to them differently?  What have you guys experienced?

Thanks!

[Nitrofreak]

Ideal is hard or firm bottom, sand, rock, clay etc...or a good mix of any or all of the above, Composition is one of many keys for productive areas, good structure composition supports life of even the smallest organisms, which in turn attracts species that will feed on these organisms.

[slonezp]

firm apple shaped

[Rusty Shackleford]

31 minutes ago, slonezp said:

firm apple shaped

That's something I can get behind 

[IndianaFinesse]

They usually prefer a mix of bottom types with it mostly being hard.

[Catt]

Totally & completely depends on they body of water.

Bass can not select the body of water in which they live, so what's ideal in one body of water may not be in another.

[Nitrofreak]

57 minutes ago, Catt said:

Totally & completely depends on they body of water.

Bass can not select the body of water in which they live, so what's ideal in one body of water may not be in another.

Can that, or might that not hold true for even the same body of water but in different sections as well?

[Catt]

The definition of "ideal": satisfying one's conception of what's perfect!

In bass fishing the definition of "ideal": most suitable!

["hamma"]

sure it can or might,...it may even be the "most subtle change" in any section of any lake,.... in my honest opinion

But just because you find a change in the composition, doesn't mean it will hold fish right then,.. I think it depends on what they are relating to at that moment. 

I have found that you may find a,... lets say (just for giggles),... rock to sand pattern, that holds true in several sections of a lake , but then you come to one that it doesn't,..possibly due to wind, current, direction of sunlight, etc.

 To disect all the variables, could be an endless endevour

and as for peat and muck? muck may be just lifeless mud and peat holding live biodiversity,....just a guess

 I hope i explained that corrcctly

[Catt]

15 hours ago, Nitrofreak said:

Ideal is hard or firm bottom, sand, rock, clay etc...or a good mix of any or all of the above, Composition is one of many keys for productive areas, good structure composition supports life of even the smallest organisms, which in turn attracts species that will feed on these organisms.

Y'all ever notice areas where bass spawn, feed, & live are never the same areas?

[Nitrofreak]

 

1 hour ago, Catt said:

Y'all ever notice areas where bass spawn, feed, & live are never the same areas?

During the last couple of years I have been working really hard at understanding not just structure, the composition, nor vegetation associated with, but, all of the above, when we talk about ideal composition we are taught to look to places associated with hard or firm bottom areas, especially for the spawn, mainly or "idealistically" areas that can support a growth of vegetation, or areas that can support organisms that attract prey for where they feed, however, too much of a good thing is in fact at times not a good thing, aquatic life can't grow from solid rock, where they live has a lot to do with water conditions and maturity of the bass, am I close to what your getting at ?

Where bass spawn, feed and live is different for each body of water we visit and have differences within each section, in order to determine the best areas of opportunity I feel you must not look at a body of water as whole, you must section it and break it down bit by bit, each section is different with its own values that attract numbers of fish, or not at all.

I don't have the experience you do by any means so I'm uncertain what you are asking, my experience thus far has been that of where bass spawn, feed and live primarily is associated with areas that contain some sort of firm or hard bottom in, or, close proximity to, each.

 

[Catt]

11 minutes ago, Nitrofreak said:

 

During the last couple of years I have been working really hard at understanding not just structure, the composition, nor vegetation associated with, but, all of the above, when we talk about ideal composition we are taught to look to places associated with hard or firm bottom areas, especially for the spawn, mainly or "idealistically" areas that can support a growth of vegetation, or areas that can support organisms that attract prey for where they feed, however, too much of a good thing is in fact at times not a good thing, aquatic life can't grow from solid rock, where they live has a lot to do with water conditions and maturity of the bass, am I close to what your getting at ?

Where bass spawn, feed and live is different for each body of water we visit and have differences within each section, in order to determine the best areas of opportunity I feel you must not look at a body of water as whole, you must section it and break it down bit by bit, each section is different with its own values that attract numbers of fish, or not at all.

I don't have the experience you do by any means so I'm uncertain what you are asking, my experience thus far has been that of where bass spawn, feed and live primarily is associated with areas that contain some sort of firm or hard bottom in, or, close proximity to, each.

 

Now this guy is getting it.

 

["hamma"]

Id agree that Catt and Nitro's discussion would apply in bodies of water that contain different compositions and cover on structure, but what about lakes and ponds that are just a sand bowl, or made up of nothing but rock left by the glaciers during the ice age? lakes that have absolutely no change in bottoms "composition" whatsoever? depth becomes composition

I'll give you that this happens mostly in northern states with colder climates,

..On such waters bass seem to gravitate to changes in depth,... in sandbowls locating themselves for easiest access to forage, as say a river channels entrance to the lake, or the depth baitfish are holding at. on rock formed lakes they hold tight to the huge boulders for chasing baitfish, and can be anywhere when targeting crayfish.

 On such lakes the bass actually do spawn. feed, and live in the exact same areas.,... It's the usually subtle changes in depth that will attract them, and when you find those sublties,. Largemouth are there 24/7 moving slightly (maybe as much as 100 yards) depending on wind, sun, or current and smallmouths varying a bit more,.. kinda like nomads.. Now the game is a little different. It isn't as easy as fishing a defined change in composition on structure, knowing where they are, and what they are feeding on,..you need to now figure out what they relating to in that "subtle" change and why,... like finding a pattern within a pattern,. focusing your attention just a little more. Making it even harder is the fact that "most" of these bodies of water have extremely gin clear water. Usually,  these fish see you before you find them, you'll NEED to pre-fish it well, make extremely long casts to that pinpointed "pattern within a pattern" and pay even more attention to the present conditions due to lack of demonstrative cover. When god above flicks that preverbial "switch" and what was working, now fails?,... On such lakes its a more difficult task to figure out whats going to work now, usually the fish will either suspend and shut down, or hold tight to the bottom and either reluctantly hit with great predjudice, or clam up. It's that reluctant hit thats tough to figure out.  They dont have the availability of hiding in the weeds, or to snuggle up to a brushpile, or suspend under docks,...these three arent there.

 Many of you may be saying to yourself,, "whats the difference, change is change, be it subtle or definatve, id still fish it the same",... I understand your thoughts,... the difference is: first,... finding the subtle change is harder to do, secondly,.. its usually not like fishing a weedline as you feel the weeds then not,, or flipping docks you can see, or carolina rigging a drop that you feel the weight drop,. The "subtle" change may be a single cooler sized rock on a very slight depth change,.. or a different color in the sand that the darker color holds warmth better, or  the presence of a short growing weed on the bottom. etc: the subtle is just that, finding it isnt as easy as you may think

Just as bass are "oppurtunistic" in lakes with a great biodiversity of cover and structure,.. they are still the same species in lakes with no biodiversity or compsition changes at all,...just that they are in a different neighborhood and react a bit different to survive. they have no choice

 just my opinion from what i've observed, im no professor.,...... so please dont shoot!,...lol ,...I really find this type of discussion very interesting and welcome any replies,..positive or negative alike

[geo g]

For catching bass you should be asking where the bait fish like to be.  Bass will follow the bait wherever they go.  Food is key to where bass spend most of their time.   During the spawn they like hard bottom, especially sandy bottom, rock bottom.  They will move into these areas when the mood suits them.  Guys that spend a lot of time on a particular body of water, know the movements according to that time of year, and the weather.  Except for bedding,  follow the bait.

[BassThumb]

Rather than focus on one bottom type, try focusing on areas where one bottom type transitions into another bottom type. That's where I have my best luck.

Oftentimes, when you find one weed type transitioning into another weed type, they're a transition line where one sort of bottom content meets another. Those areas hold fish.

I'm willing to bet that most people's "Honey Holes" are on a bottom-content transition line, even if they don't realize it. 

[Catt]

We back to where I started.

[Nitrofreak]

Just got done getting ready for a day on the water tomorrow, first time actually fishing this year so I wanted to make sure I had everything in the boat LOL!

Lots of good stuff, I'll catch up ASAP, Hamma, great info in your post, it's going to be put to good use in my clear gravel pits we have spotting my area, bass thumb, are you referencing break lines?

See you guys, good luck and be safe if your out tomorrow !!

[Bluebasser86]

Don't know what the bass prefer, but I prefer rock. 

[F14A-B]

Another vote for rock, pea gravel if possible.

Sand, and well, ok..hydrilla and pads..

["hamma"]

Thanks nitro!,..and good luck

[the reel ess]

The best place I fish around here for quality size bass is almost all weedy bottom. It limits the baits you can use and I had to learn new ways of getting to them. But man, the bass seem to grow big there.

[Nitrofreak]

I learned something yesterday out on the lake, at least I feel like I did, I took note of where I caught fish and where I had seen those big females, particularly the bottom composition in the area I had seen those Big'uns, I thought about this thread and how much it went against the grain of where we should be looking, the bottom composition was pure muck and the stumps were for the most part silted over, like much of the lower part of this lake, it had all the wrong reasons and yet, here they were.

What in the world is it that would attract such beautiful big fish to a location that is not "ideal"?

I want to take a stab at this and see where it leads, this lake for the most part is clean of any rock, sand or gravel, especially in the lower regions above 15 feet, the upper regions however are much more thriving, the clearing they did when the lake was created left very few areas that were "ideal" and has since for the most part silted over, carp that was introduced have all but cleared any grass that was useful to the bass habitat, I feel in this case that it wasn't what the area lacked, instead my attention turned to that of what the area offered, what the area in question did have is worthy to note, it had timber, (beaver hut) a fresh water supply via a small creek that drains into this area via a small waterfall, and the wreckage of a small wooden Jon boat, also it had access to deeper water within 100 yards, what made this area prime, well maybe not prime, more like useful, wasn't the bottom composition.

I feel like a lot of opportunities could be missed just because we are supposed to seek out what should be perfection, this is why we should not look at lakes or bodies of water as a whole, someone here taught me that but I can't for the life of me remember who that was..., just because an area isn't appealing does not mean it has no use, breaking an area down bit by bit may produce better results than one can anticipate, maybe it wasn't the ideal spot but the spot made it ideal.

[Catt]

2 hours ago, Nitrofreak said:

I learned something yesterday out on the lake, at least I feel like I did, I took note of where I caught fish and where I had seen those big females, particularly the bottom composition in the area I had seen those Big'uns, I thought about this thread and how much it went against the grain of where we should be looking, the bottom composition was pure muck and the stumps were for the most part silted over, like much of the lower part of this lake, it had all the wrong reasons and yet, here they were.

What in the world is it that would attract such beautiful big fish to a location that is not "ideal"?

I want to take a stab at this and see where it leads, this lake for the most part is clean of any rock, sand or gravel, especially in the lower regions above 15 feet, the upper regions however are much more thriving, the clearing they did when the lake was created left very few areas that were "ideal" and has since for the most part silted over, carp that was introduced have all but cleared any grass that was useful to the bass habitat, I feel in this case that it wasn't what the area lacked, instead my attention turned to that of what the area offered, what the area in question did have is worthy to note, it had timber, (beaver hut) a fresh water supply via a small creek that drains into this area via a small waterfall, and the wreckage of a small wooden Jon boat, also it had access to deeper water within 100 yards, what made this area prime, well maybe not prime, more like useful, wasn't the bottom composition.

I feel like a lot of opportunities could be missed just because we are supposed to seek out what should be perfection, this is why we should not look at lakes or bodies of water as a whole, someone here taught me that but I can't for the life of me remember who that was..., just because an area isn't appealing does not mean it has no use, breaking an area down bit by bit may produce better results than one can anticipate, maybe it wasn't the ideal spot but the spot made it ideal.

 

On April 16, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Catt said:

Totally & completely depends on they body of water.

Bass can not select the body of water in which they live, so what's ideal in one body of water may not be in another.