Were you paying attention?

[bigtimfish]

I am not the person to do this, but I think someone should start a new thread about the differences between smallmouth and largemouth. The way they act,feeding habits, lure selections,etc. I would read that from top to bottom.

[Mottfia]

Looks to me like the biggest factor is the forage.

The forage seems to dictate location and lures.

Mottfia

Bluegills, for instance, can be found in dense vegetation, broken veg, wood, open water, shallow or deep. You would choose a diff lure or presentation for each. Water clarity and sky conditions would affect this too.

I think location specifics and conditions dictate method and lure choices first. Then there's finding the proper approach angles. This, with method/lure choice I call "gettin' in". Trying to match forage is really difficult, esp with large prey in stillwater -I'd call that part of fine-tuning.

Just the way I look at it.

You're right Paul. I left my first post alittle broad.

What I meant by "forage seems to dictate location and lures" is that the bass are their because of a high concentration of food. The lure choice also comes from the cover that the forage is around.

The central idea in my way of thinking is food. Its not just to focus on color, its also about establishing a pattern.

Mottfia

[Eddie Munster]

Well I didn't catch the episode but I am paying attention. Good debate here and for those of us who are still learning ( ) I thank you all. Good stuff.

I choose to key on something different in the statement though and that's the location of BETTER fish. Something to for me to keep in mind; are the big ones there or do I need to move on?

[Paul Roberts]

Looks to me like the biggest factor is the forage.

The forage seems to dictate location and lures.

Mottfia

Bluegills, for instance, can be found in dense vegetation, broken veg, wood, open water, shallow or deep. You would choose a diff lure or presentation for each. Water clarity and sky conditions would affect this too.

I think location specifics and conditions dictate method and lure choices first. Then there's finding the proper approach angles. This, with method/lure choice I call "gettin' in". Trying to match forage is really difficult, esp with large prey in stillwater -I'd call that part of fine-tuning.

Just the way I look at it.

You're right Paul. I left my first post alittle broad.

What I meant by "forage seems to dictate location and lures" is that the bass are their because of a high concentration of food. The lure choice also comes from the cover that the forage is around.

The central idea in my way of thinking is food. Its not just to focus on color, its also about establishing a pattern.

Mottfia

Gotcha. Agreed. Food is the biggest motivator (outside the immediate spawn). Protection is wrapped in too of course. Sounds like a we're getting down to the functional definition of structure doesn't it.

[Catt]

Technically, if you use the definition of structure as given by this site.

Changes in the shape of the bottom of lakes, rivers, or impoundments, especially those that influence fish behavior. This is probably the most misunderstood word in bass fishing. Structure is a feature on the bottom of the lake. Some examples of structure are creeks, humps, depressions, sandbars, roadbeds, ledges, and drop-offs. Some examples that are not structure: a stump, tree, or brush pile (these are cover).

[Tin]

This is exactly why I bowed out of this one.  

[RoLo]

Buck Perry was well-meaning when he coined the term "structure", but he actually reshaped a preexisting word.

Unfortunately, the reshaping of the meaning of "structure" did not stop there. With regard to fishing jargon,

the word "structure" has become a catchall term, a blanket description for every positive lake feature.

At one time or another, I've seen the word "structure" used in association with changes in bottom composition,

mud-lines that separate clear & muddy water, flow-line cleavage between main current and back-eddies,

and even thermal breaks in water temperature. The more meanings and senses that a word takes on,

the more MEANINGLESS the word becomes.

For my own personal edification, I prefer the terms "contour" and "cover", while avoiding the word "structure".

"Contour" refers to the shape (contour) of the underlying terrain, while "cover" is anything that lies atop (covers) the terrain.

For instance, a submerged gravel hump would represent "contour", while car-sized boulders resting on that gravel hump

represent "cover". But if you asked an angler if those boulders represent "structure", be prepared for a labored response.

Today, the word structure inspires more questions than answers, which is counterproductive.

To err on the side of safety, whenever I see the term "structure", what I actually see is : "             "

Roger

[fourbizz]

I knew if I stuck around here long enough I would catch RoLo using a word like cleavage, lol. ;D

[Paul Roberts]

Roger, I like that. What I like about it is it is much less glamorous than structure (except the cleavage part); a cool headed technician's term for, simply, the lay of the bottom. Anglers love to call anything with fish relating to it structure but some structure may not attract fish at all. And conversely, I've seen lone boulder groups on expansive silt flats holding groups of mature bass taking cracks at passing pelagic prey, and possibly waiting out craws. I've seen LMs living happily in expansive vegetated flats, using slight breaks created by contour because they result in changes in the vegetation not because they were special in any other way. I've even seen mature bass (albeit SM) that roam pelagically and not related to contours. Some LM do this too although LM are somewhat, but not entirely, different energetically.

SoI see fish holding areas (whatever you term them) in a functional sense: locations that produce food, and offer protection from predators and the elements (in most waters and circumstances this includes depth contour changes), and proximity usually matters.

Breaks are places that hold bass either for the feeling of security they offer, or they are localized places that offer an advantage in feeding. If they are close together, great, the more the merrier. But bass do not NEED signposts to travel by. Telemetry has shown this notion, although common, not necessary, and thus not explaining the true function of breaks.  

The term "structure" is a large scale term that CAN be useless. Just realize what's important when talking about fish use of it.

[Fishing Rhino]

Well I didn't catch the episode but I am paying attention. Good debate here and for those of us who are still learning ( ) I thank you all. Good stuff.

I choose to key on something different in the statement though and that's the location of BETTER fish. Something to for me to keep in mind; are the big ones there or do I need to move on?

I would submit that we are all "still learning".  When we think we have nothing left to learn, we deceive ourselves.

[Fishing Rhino]

Is this not exactly what I said?

Ok all you students of structure fishing

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

No Catt the key was in the lures Greg was matching the hatch

No dude the key was All of my better fish today came off a hard break (a break line)

You take away the structure you have nothing

1st Structure

2nd Break Lines

3rd Cover

4th Lure Selection

5th Catch Bass

True that..... Have you guys not ever pulled up to a good spot of fish (whether it be structure, break line, or cover), and caught them on basically anything you threw? Changing and catching bass on different lures dosn't prove anything other than the bass may have got accustomed to him throwing another one. Ive fished brush piles on drops before, caught a few keeprs on a jig and the bite stop. Throw right back with something else and immediately get bit... I don't think so much that what I threw mattered, its how I threw it and from what angle. Its not necessarily the lure if you hit it right. The wrong lure with the right presentation is much better than the right lure with the wrong presentation. Im not going to say that I have never seen a day where a lure or color seem to matter, but its far lower on the list of my priorities than finding the good fish to begin with.

I think TommyBass has done a bit of fishing.

If Greg was casting those same lures randomly, would he have done as well?

As a long-time fly-fisher my other thought was the kind of mayflies emerging. Mud produces MUCH less food in rivers (and often lakes) than cobble. the more surface area the substrate offers the better. There are burrowing mays, and one species will burrow in silt, others in gravel. But the vast majority of mayflies live on larger substrate though -cobbles and boulders. The hard bottomed areas, whatever they were, likely were the source of the activity along those stretches.

Put those two together: food production concentrating activity and angle of presentation and you've probably got a big chunk of that scenario.

Man, did that just open my eyes to at least one of the reasons my favorite pond produces so many fish, and so many good ones.  There is a shelf around the perimeter of the pond that varies from sand, to gravel, to cobble, to stones, to boulders.  Most of the perimeter has emergent vegetation.  The loosestrife which I detest, but likely has a period where it is beneficial to the fish, the hyacinth, reeds, and a few beds of lily pads.  There are also three places that have the very tall, eight to ten feet, grass with the tufts on the top.  Similar to cat tails, but taller without the hot dog top.

Away from this shelf, the pond is predominately a silt/muddy bottom with very little vegetation, save for a few areas of cobble.  

The only fish that seem to inhabit that area of the pond, as a matter of course, are dense schools of white perch, and crappie.

[Paul Roberts]

Fishing Rhino wrote:

very tall, eight to ten feet, grass with the tufts on the top.

Tom, that's Phragmites -I believe it's invasive. (Correct me Roger if need be )

Sounds like you have a very diverse pond, habitat-wise. Very cool, very fun -lots of options for bass and a bass angler to dabble in. Unfortunately, my man-made (and relatively young) ponds I have here are pretty limited that way .

That shelf is the food shelf (Catt's "kitchen" -same term I use for the riffles in a trout stream). That food shelf can exist in many configurations though -not just along shorelines. A key component is light penetration -that's where food chains (worth considering) start from. Add to this diversity of substrate (an ecological term for area in which life can grow on) and you are crankin' out food. Rich, diverse habitats are sheer beauty and get my heart racing.

Always made me wonder if the concept of "beauty" isn't derived from this diversity and complexity -going back to our hunter gatherer roots. (Threw that in for you Tom, and any other wide ranging thinkers ). Imagine hiking a long way and coming to either a desert, or an eden. Which would get your heart racing and your spirits up? I know that feeling and get it every time I see a richly diverse pond and every time I look round the next bend of a rich trout stream.

[bassnleo]

This is exactly why I bowed out of this one.

LOL, and why I stayed out.

I have fished the 3 rivers, it's an animal all it's own.  

[Eddie Munster]

Well I didn't catch the episode but I am paying attention. Good debate here and for those of us who are still learning ( ) I thank you all. Good stuff.

I choose to key on something different in the statement though and that's the location of BETTER fish. Something to for me to keep in mind; are the big ones there or do I need to move on?

I would submit that we are all "still learning". When we think we have nothing left to learn, we deceive ourselves.

Yep; that's why I included a   in my post.  

Some very learned individuals here and the truly smart ones have an open mind.

[Catt]

Structure has become something it never was beforecomplicated

Structure does not have to be a 25' shear drop off or huge underwater humps; structure is quite often subtle changes to the bottom.  

Break/break line is "Any distinct line that is made by cover or structure which leads to a change in bottom depth, composition, or cover transition".

[Paul Roberts]

Catt wrote:

Structure has become something it never was beforecomplicated

I guess I want to know the 'why', not just the 'what'.

As you've said before whenever I really open my yap... "...fishing doesn't have to complicated." True enough.

Follow Buck Perry's advice and most anglers will be well ahead of the crowd. Strikes me Buck knew a lot of what, but not a lot of why.

[RoLo]

SoI see fish holding areas (whatever you term them) in a functional sense: locations that produce food, and offer protection from predators and the elements (in most waters and circumstances this includes depth contour changes), and proximity usually matters.

Exactly.

In addition, a "year-round" holding site would also provide a spawning flat and nursery area,

thereby offering optimal population dynamics and recruitment.

But bass do not NEED signposts to travel by. Telemetry has shown this notion, although common, not necessary, and thus not explaining the true function of breaks.

Buck's ideas were new in the 60s, but archaic by today's standards, and have since been upended by In-Fisherman telemetry.

Before man created the first artificial reservoir, natural lakes were devoid of submerged bridges, culverts and roadbeds.

All that stuff came later with the advent of manmade impoundments (e.g. TVA). More importantly, there has never been

a single radio tracking study evidencing bi-daily migration of largemouth bass, from deep water to shallow water and back.

Alternatively, different populations of bass live simultaneously in different depth zones. Assuming that all bass

in every depth zone do not feed at once, it's very plausible how this would create the illusion of migration.

Roger

[Jeff H]

The "why" is a tail you'll chase until you're buried.  It can/will vary not only by geographic locations but individual bodies within and on a daily basis  as well.  Trying to pin down reasons for any wild animal/fish behavior is something that even no expert will have 100% guarantee's on.  The fish will never tell us "why"(because technically they can't talk!), and until they do, all is subjective conjecture.  If these things were known fact, ALL the fun would be gone from fishing.

Buck Perry bases his shared knowledge of structure fishing on another element people ignore.  It is what drives fish movements/migrations "in general".  I think this is what he teaches but people tend to focus his observations too tightly.  There are always exceptions, and throughout my days of tournament fishing I saw plenty of exceptions.  However, I saw way more supportive evidence of Buck's teachings.

In any case, I support Catt's view on all of this.

[Jeff H]

I would like to ask, before anyone further attempts to discredit Buck Perrys visions/theories/observations/teachings etc., how many have actually read or been taught his complete viewpoint?

And while I agree that maybe his view was not quite the same as whats taken for gospel today, he and he alone stood the fishing world on it's ears with those same views WAY ahead of his time.  Because of him, bass fisherman especially, have pulled away from the banks and been hugely successful.  I am one of them and while I owe every bit of my existence to God, I owe my fish locating skills to Buck Perry (And Roger Betts who taught me his ways).  

As for impoundments and all their respective structural elements, Buck DOES make mention of these in his materials.  Every one of us would be a much better angler if you'd go to his site and pick up his "self study" course.  It is NOT outdated information and will be the BEST money you EVER spent on your pursuit of fishing success.  If you are a shore bound angler, maybe not but it's still worth it for your future and the day you own a boat.

To discredit Buck Perry is like discrediting Vince Lombardi.  Maybe their methods are not the gospel today but they both d**n sure laid the foundation of success in their respective pursuits.

[Paul Roberts]

The "why" is a tail you'll chase until you're buried. It can/will vary not only by geographic locations but individual bodies within and on a daily basis as well. Trying to pin down reasons for any wild animal/fish behavior is something that even no expert will have 100% guarantee's on. The fish will never tell us "why"(because technically they can't talk!), and until they do, all is subjective conjecture. If these things were known fact, ALL the fun would be gone from fishing.

I, for one, don't expect 100% certainty. Nature will quickly rip those expectations away -as you mention. But better understandings are possible, the levels of subjectivity fathomed, and those understandings will continue to accrue. I'm willing to consider them and take what I can from them.

Also, I'm not afraid of complexity -it's fun! And ALL the fun can't be taken from fishing bc, as you say, it's just too complex. We'll always find something to have to figure out. We anglers earn our keep out there, just like the bass do. I wouldn't have it any other way.

As to "dis-crediting" Buck Perry... Some of the the things he divined by rod and reel have fallen under better lighting. (Again, 100% certainty isn't to be expected. Doubt Buck did either.) This does not mean his contributions were not, and still aren't, monumental. But...what's been seen since, with technology not available in his day, paints an altered picture, and promises better resolution to come.

On this point, I was going to respond with more info, but I've seen the discussions around Buck's observations turn into something else altogether. So, I'm gonna back off.

Plus, it's been a long time since I read Buck's stuff, and do not presently own it. At your suggestion, I'm going to shut up and order it. Thanks for the reminder.

[Paul Roberts]

Done! Ordered #2. Thanks Jeff.

[Jeff H]

Lots of reading there Paul.  I hope you enjoy it.  I think, given that lots of guys don't like to read, getting through the whole thing can be tough for most.  I have not read mine in close to 10 yrs but I'll dig it out and read it again after this season is over.   Have plenty of time to read in hunting camp.

Ya know, I really wish I could have met the guy.  I get a kick out of his style/sense of humor.  Some of the stories he shares just crack me up.

[Big-O]

Fine Info Catt and most successful fishermen will always hold close to the saying "Find the Fish-Catch the Fish".......with this in mind we can all relate to being in the fish and on an active bite then the fish slow or quit on that bait or presentation. We change it up in that same location and start catching the fish again.....That's the reason we have so many rods rigged with the vast variety of offerings we feel will translate in bites.  

Locate the fish and throw the Box at'em, catch all you can with everything you can and move to reproduce your pattern and do it again. Location, Location, Location  

Big O

www.ragetail.com

[Catt]

Consistently catching bass is a process of elimination and duplication. Eliminate patterns and waters that are non-productive and duplicate patterns and waters that are productive.

As for science trying to discredit Buck Perry it has more times than not solidified his findings.

[Mottfia]

SoI see fish holding areas (whatever you term them) in a functional sense: locations that produce food, and offer protection from predators and the elements (in most waters and circumstances this includes depth contour changes), and proximity usually matters.

Exactly.

In addition, a "year-round" holding site would also provide a spawning flat and nursery area,

thereby offering optimal population dynamics and recruitment.

These two quotes might be the simpliest way I have ever seen finding fish holding locations termed but its dead on.

I think we have hit all the complicated reasons of why...so why not have an easy version of the same textbook

Mottfia