Structure By Catt

[WRB]

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]

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]

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

46 minutes ago, 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]

2 hours ago, 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]

2 minutes ago, 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]

1 hour ago, 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]

3 hours ago, 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]

4 hours ago, 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]

17 hours ago, 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]

28 minutes ago, 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]

6 hours ago, 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.

 

6 hours ago, 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.

 

4 hours ago, 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.

 

4 hours ago, 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]

19 minutes ago, 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]

On 12/30/2016 at 9:57 AM, ww2farmer said:

 

 

There's no such thing as a structure-less fish bowl.............

 

I see them for sale in the pet stores....

[Catt]

5 hours ago, 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]

8 hours ago, 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]

4 hours ago, 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]

1 hour ago, 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]

3 hours ago, 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]

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]

20 hours ago, 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]

11 hours ago, Catt said:

Where might be an excellent location to find some fish in this situation?

The north side? 

[Raul]

19 hours ago, 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]

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]

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]

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."