Structure By Catt

[Paul Roberts]

55 minutes ago, 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]

Like most things I like to pursue, it's a mix of science and art.  With practice comes skill.

[MFBAB]

12 minutes ago, 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]

nice info cat!!  been working on breaks where points are close to chanel using worm on bottom. I like it! 

[slonezp]

8 hours ago, 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]

On 1/5/2017 at 7:32 PM, 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]

20 minutes ago, 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]

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"]

2 hours ago, 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]

On 1/2/2017 at 1:06 AM, 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]

@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]

4 hours ago, "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!'

 

2 hours ago, 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]

3 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?

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]

1 minute ago, 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"]

  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]

On 1/5/2017 at 2:07 PM, 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]

4 hours ago, 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]

On 1/5/2017 at 0:07 PM, 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]

14 minutes ago, 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]

Show me on the map where the bass hurt your ego

[Paul Roberts]

36 minutes ago, 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]

5 minutes ago, Paul Roberts said:

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.

 

 

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]

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]

Great read.  Thanks Catt, A-Jay, and ALL.

[WRB]

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