Advice for shallow water angler moving out to the deep stuff

[Team9nine]

2 hours ago, WRB said:

 

Yes, the entire lake bottom is structure and not all structure attracts bait or bass. Give me a break!

Tom

 

Tom has spoken, so shall it be...

[WRB]

3 hours ago, Scarborough817 said:

tom do you think it is entirely required to have a map? im debating between 2 units and i can't decide if i need one that will map my lake 

Nearly every man made lake has a topographic elevation map of some type and most natural lakes usually have sounding maps that show depths. I made several of my own lake maps using topo map and adding features as I discovered them. I don't know if it's necessary to make your own using mapping sonar, depending on the lake that could a lot of time. It comes down to 10-20% of the lake holds 90% of the bass, maps help you find those areas without wasting a lot of time on the water fishing unproductive areas.

Tom

[WRB]

1 hour ago, Team9nine said:

 

Tom has spoken, so shall it be...

What I enjoy about the BR site is members don't hide, they express their opinions.

Tom

 

[J Francho]

Easy guys, these are critical topics to success!  

 

Keep the useful knowledge flowing.

[Frogman]

50 minutes ago, WRB said:

It comes down to 10-20% of the lake holds 90% of the bass, maps help you find those areas without wasting a lot of time on the water fishing unproductive areas.

Tom

This is the ultimate goal.  Identifying these waters and learning to maximize their potential.  I am fishing a 41000 acre man made reservoir.  I can make a lot of assumptions by looking at the lay of the land as it enters the water, but without GPS and mapping systems, it would be a nightmare to locate these more productive waters.  I have a lot of respect for the old timers that did it with none of this technology!!!!  We are truly blessed to have all of these tools at our fingertips.

[Catt]

If I had to make a choice it would be down imaging & a paper map!

 

Paper maps have more details the any electronic maps.

 

Down imaging because I want to see directly underneath my boat. Not only do we have a lot of grass but we have timber...not just timber but the whole forest! 

 

In the picture below there should be water at least to the top of those stumps & some of the year over em!

[WRB]

Back in '68 I fished Walter F. George lake before it was called Eufaula and was able to find topo maps to study before making the trip. Other than Lake Shasta and Mead I hadn't fished big reserviors before. From those topo maps the lower 1/3rd of the lake looked familiar to the structure I was familiar with in SoCal and focused on the area nearer the dam on the left side looking at the dam. Long underwater points with steep canyons dropping into the main river channel and lots of big bass. I was the only boat fishing more than 50 yards off shore.

My guess is bass populations are still in that same area and Navionics has excellent 1' elevation maps of Eufaula today.

Like Catt I still look at my old paper lake maps with all my notes and spots marked on them, photos attached, they are priceless to me.

Tom

 

[TnRiver46]

12 minutes ago, WRB said:

Back in '68 I fished Walter F. George lake before it was called Eufaula and was able to find topo maps to study before making the trip. Other than Lake Shasta and Mead I hadn't fished big reserviors before. From those topo maps the lower 1/3rd of the lake looked familiar to the structure I was familiar with in SoCal and focused on the area nearer the dam on the left side looking at the dam. Long underwater points with steep canyons dropping into the main river channel and lots of big bass. I was the only boat fishing more than 50 yards off shore.

My guess is bass populations are still in that same area and Navionics has excellent 1' elevation maps of Eufaula today.

Like Catt I still look at my old paper lake maps with all my notes and spots marked on them, photos attached, they are priceless to me.

Tom

 

Canyons going into a river channel........ do you think those would hold big fish year round? I know where a bunch of those are. I fish them some but probably not enough. As you can see on the maps there are plenty to choose from

[deep]

8 hours ago, WRB said:

Yes, the entire lake bottom is structure and not all structure attracts bait or bass. Give me a break!

 

5 hours ago, Team9nine said:

 

Tom has spoken, so shall it be...

 

Bet @Team9nine would have agreed if Tom wanted breaklines instead of breaks...

 

While I don't fish huge lakes or for smallmouths/ spotted bass, what I look for are structures having deep water access (deepest water in the area) and hopefully with breaks (breaklines) at different depths.

Use prior knowledge and/ or seasonal habits to find a structure or two I want to start at. Use the depthfinder to find the depth(s) the fish are at, and then fish structures with breaks at those depths. Works well in an ideal world. In practice, it takes me some/ a lot of trial and error (depending on how well the fish cooperate).

 

I do have a lot of confidence fishing hard jerkbaits for suspended (inactive?) fish (NLMB, don't know about other kinds of bass). Doesn't work all the time, but when it works I swear it works pretty well. Once again the trick is to fish a bait that stays at the correct depth.

[Team9nine]

8 hours ago, Catt said:

 

 

Wow, look at all that structure !!! Or not...  Nice pic, Catt!

 

5 hours ago, deep said:

 

Bet @Team9nine would have agreed if Tom wanted breaklines instead of breaks...

 

The problem IMO is that using Catt's picture as an example, along with my comment on it, anybody reading it wouldn't really know what I'm referring to, because everybody chooses to have their own definitions. As such, how can you have any kind of coherent conversation when every reader has their own idea of what 'structure' is in that picture, or anytime someone talks about it in a post? According to Tom, there's a lot of structure shown there. I see practically none (only one possibility caught my eye). Based on some other previous comments, all those stumps and standing timber are structure. No wonder it seems like a tough challenge to learn for so many.

[Catt]

@Team9nine there's a lot of structure in that picture!

 

Google fishing structure for bass & here's the first thing that shows up!

 

 

[scaleface]

Its easy to confuse structure and cover  , heck even the pros do it .Anglers on  Youtube videos are constantly doing it . On this forum structure is generally defined as the bottom topography . Good structure would be a depth change such as a point , hump , channel.... All that timber in the photo is cover so would be rip rap , vegetation , brush piles.. .  Thats simple to understand .

 

Breaks and breaklines are a bit more confusing because it can be both cover, timber or even water clarity , and thermoclines .  My understanding  is  a breakline is a change in the environment  that can be followed ?   Would this be a correct definition . 

[deep]

It's impossible to not fish structure as long as my cast lands in the water.. (i.e. when I'm not fishing for squirrels as one of my buddies likes to say).

 

Whether or not the structure itself is attractive to fish, or if I'm fishing breaklines and/ or cover (oops should I have said breaks @Team9nine?) at correct depths on said structure (which would increase my odds) are different questions. And don't even get me started on speed.

 

I think those are the questions the OP is interested in though, unfortunately.

 

As far as @Catt's picture is concerned, I see plenty of structures. Humps, flats, inlets. Well they would be structures when the water comes up. There's a ton more (underwater) that I can't see. I don't see very many sharp breaks (breaklines) at a cursory glance, but sharpness is relative obviously.

I have no idea- because we don't have the big picture (quite literally)- if I should fish that spot...

 

4 hours ago, Team9nine said:

 Based on some other previous comments, all those stumps and standing timber are structure. No wonder it seems like a tough challenge to learn for so many.

 

Agreed.

 

2 hours ago, scaleface said:

Breaks and breaklines are a bit more confusing because it can be both cover, timber or even water clarity , and thermoclines .  My understanding  is  a breakline is a change in the environment  that can be followed ?   Would this be a correct definition . 

 

We should blame Buck Perry for that confusion lol. "Break" sounds too much like "breakline". Call all depth or other (light/ O2/ clarity/ temp/ composition/...) changes breaklines and timber, weeds, docks,... etc cover, and realize that they are fundamentally different, and be done with it.

 

 

 

 

[scaleface]

In this map  of a creek in Mark Twain Lake , there is the major creek channel to the west with several small creeks feeding it from the east  . The east is a large flat used as a farm field . The squiggly lines on the map  are woods . The area in the middle of the black circle I drew ,has a point "structure" , little creek channel " break line" that has a direct path to the deep channel and woods " cover" .   These are the type of places I look for when studying maps . Its easily overlooked  .

 

[Catt]

@deep

 

When the subject of structure fishing comes up many people incorrectly assume you are referring to deep water fishing this is partially untrue. It doesn't matter if you are fishing bank shallow or 40' deep your are fishing structure that is if you are catching fish.

 

In its pure form, structure is defined as relating to those permanent topographical differences within a body of water... shape of the bottom. 

 

Breakline: A breakline can have more than one meaning. It can be another word for a drop-off/ledge, or a point of any quick change in depth. It can also be used to describe the edge of a vegetation line. For example, a "weed break" is the area of the weed bed where the weeds meet up with open water; or, where one type of weed meets up with another. The next example happens when bottom composition changes, as different weeds prefer different types of bottom composition. In rocky impoundments, a breakline can also describe a line where rock meets mud, pea gravel, etc. In other words, the most correct definition for a breakline is "Any distinct line that is made by cover or structure which leads to an abrupt change in bottom depth, composition, or cover transition.

 

For this dumb coonass it's about starting at the bottom!

 

First the general shape of the bottom (soil, dirt, terra firma); humps, ridges, points, creek/river channels, ext.

 

 

[WRB]

Responding to the OP's request to help moving out to the deep stuff means moving away from shore or off shore verses on shore. I believe we have answered that question and debating the meaning of structure and/or cover because terms used in bass fishing have different meaning regionally. 

Catts above definition is the same as the majority of bass anglers. Where we differ is agreeing what cover is, but as long as you recognize both are important to locate bass, then we are all on the same page. 

Bass fishing is a simple sport with lots of variable or details to make challenging.

I haven't had the time to study any of the maps posted. Without knowing the depth to fish map reading needs to include depths normally fished and for me that is surface to 40' until I determine otherwise by being on the water.

Tom

[Catt]

After structure, breaks, & breaklines comes cover and then food source.

 

And we aint hit on weather or water conditions ?

[Team9nine]

On 11/12/2017 at 11:32 AM, Frogman said:

 

Here's what I know.  I can read a map.  I can find points and humps.  I have a ton on my home lake.  I know there is no replacement for experience.  I also know that there are some very good deep water bass fisherman on here that can begin locating deep water bass very quickly and hone in from there to find the better fish.  That's the advice I am looking for.  I am willing to put in the time and effort.  I will stay out for 6-8 hours scanning humps or slow rolling crank baits.  How do you guys figure out where you are going to start, what makes a point or hump a viable spot or not worth stopping at?  I am welcoming all advice starting with map reading to what to look for with scanning and how to cover these areas quickly to determine if they are productive.  One last piece of info, my home lake is not a river system with ledges.  It is a massive spread out man made lake.  .

 

Thanks in advance.

In my approach, the best spots (potentially), or at least the ones I want to search out and check first, are those that have the best combination of structure, breaks, breaklines and deep water, all in the same general area and related to each other. Based upon the definitions of those terms I use, it's a pretty simple and straightforward process. Based on some of the other definitions given, that approach won't get you very far.

 

 

6 hours ago, scaleface said:

Its easy to confuse structure and cover  , heck even the pros do it .Anglers on  Youtube videos are constantly doing it . On this forum structure is generally defined as the bottom topography . Good structure would be a depth change such as a point , hump , channel.... All that timber in the photo is cover so would be rip rap , vegetation , brush piles.. .  Thats simple to understand .

 

Breaks and breaklines are a bit more confusing because it can be both cover, timber or even water clarity , and thermoclines .  My understanding  is  a breakline is a change in the environment  that can be followed ?   Would this be a correct definition . 

 

Life is a lot simpler when you view everything as either structure, breaks or breaklines. It's interesting that Buck's book was 170 something pages long, and the term "cover" was given all of 2 paragraphs of coverage - lol.

 

Breaklines are technically still just breaks, but they extend for a distance. Usually it involves a depth change, either shallower or deeper, but as mentioned, a lot of other things can be considered breaklines. So a couple fenceposts sitting together would be a "break", but a submerged fence bordering an old property line or farm field (a line of fenceposts) would be a breakline. I'm not sure I would use the term "environment" in the definition though.

 

 

4 hours ago, deep said:

It's impossible to not fish structure as long as my cast lands in the water.. (i.e. when I'm not fishing for squirrels as one of my buddies likes to say).

 

Whether or not the structure itself is attractive to fish, or if I'm fishing breaklines and/ or cover (oops should I have said breaks @Team9nine?) at correct depths on said structure (which would increase my odds) are different questions. And don't even get me started on speed.

 

 

Obviously I completely disagree with that statement - lol  - but it will make a lot of anglers happy to know they can now consider themselves "structure fishermen," even if all they do is just blindly move down the shoreline beating every inch of water. 

[WRB]

We are not all wired the same and that is a good thing.

Some folks tend to be analytical thinkers seeing things is detail and can focus on these small pieces while putting the entire puzzle together. Other folks will never focus on small details and only see the entire puzzle. Being an engineer by trade and aptitude I am in the detailed focus group. This doesn't mean what I see is right or the only solution to solve a problem, it's my solution to the problem.

Team9nine, Catt, Deep and others all see things differently through their perspective and experiences that we all can benefit from if we share them. It's difficult for me sometimes to express myself without upsetting some folks, it's my black & white analytical thought process and apologize in advance, it's the way I am wired.

Unlike nearly everyone off shore bass fishing for me isn't just bass fishing, it's targeting big bass because that is where I catch the majority of big bass and spend a lot of time fishing deep structure.

What I see looking at Catts picture is 2 youngsters casting from a beach that has a groove of tall tree stumps and a few isolated short stumps. The tree groove creates a edge that is considered a breakline and that is where I would start to fish if it's the right depth at that time. If that groove of stumps is under 100' of water it would't be of interest, 10'-20' it would be looking good, dry like the photo it would go into memory and marked on my paper map.

Tom

[12poundbass]

Don't run out of steam the popcorn just finished!

 

I've said it before I'll say it again this stuff is free? 

 

I've been on here a little over a year. When I first came here I would've looked @Catt picture and saw two kids fishing. Now like @WRB I see a "break line" and I see a few isolated short stumps I'd target first. I don't know if that's correct but it's better than just seeing 2 kids fishing. 

 

Thanks guys for your wisdom, insite, help you bring to BR. It truly is priceless.

 

@Team9nine I haven't given up, I'm still reading!

[deep]

4 hours ago, Team9nine said:

Obviously I completely disagree with that statement - lol  - but it will make a lot of anglers happy to know they can now consider themselves "structure fishermen," even if all they do is just blindly move down the shoreline beating every inch of water. 

 

Structure: The bottom of the lake with some unusual features that distinguish it from the surrounding bottom area. (Buck Perry)

 

Structure is the bottom of the lake. If you turned over a smooth aluminium bowl and beat it with a heavy object, the resulting bumps and depressions on the inside of the bowl would be comparable to the high spots, ridges, and depressions found on the bottom of structured lakes. (Bill Murphy)

 

All I'm saying is the whole lake bottom is composed of different structures, separated by breaklines. Some structures hold fish certain times of the year, some hold fish all year round, some are rarely/ never visited by fish.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't have to fish on the bottom to fish structure.

 

I do admit I haven't addressed the catching part yet.

[Frogman]

Guys I can't thank you enough for the wealth of information that has been put out of this thread.  I will absolutely admit that I have always considered what you guys call "cover" to be "structure".  I knew there was a lot of knowledge here and that's why I made the original post.  I have literally been reanalyzing everything about my situation due to this thread.  Also, Buck Perry and his book have been referenced so many times that I have already ordered a copy from Ebay.  I am anxious to give this a read.  I am headed out to fish all this "new structure" I found on my map!  Thanks guys! 

[Scarborough817]

22 hours ago, scaleface said:

In this map  of a creek in Mark Twain Lake , there is the major creek channel to the west with several small creeks feeding it from the east  . The east is a large flat used as a farm field . The squiggly lines on the map  are woods . The area in the middle of the black circle I drew ,has a point "structure" , little creek channel " break line" that has a direct path to the deep channel and woods " cover" .   These are the type of places I look for when studying maps . Its easily overlooked  .

 

do you mind labeling the things you mentioned i want to make sure i am reading this properly 

[scaleface]

  

2 hours ago, Scarborough817 said:

do you mind labeling the things you mentioned i want to make sure i am reading this properly 

These are five foot topographic lines . This is a rare map with lots of detail . I colored it in with hi-liters. 

 

1:  is a point . If you look closely there is another small point across the feeder creek . 

 

2: is a small feeder creek . You can see how it is deeper than the surroundings . It's makes a direct path to the main channel . The creek gets squeezed between the two small points .

 

3; The squiggly lines are standing timber .

 

4: The main channel .

 

See how 1 , 2  and 3 all congregate at one small spot 10 to 15 foot deep .

 

On this map the topo numbers are feet above sea level . Normal pool is 606 feet above sea level . I colored it in at 605 .

So when the map reads 600 that is 6 foot deep at normal pool . 575 is 31 foot deep . 

 

[Scarborough817]

perfect thank you