Old Timers Round Up Part 2 Deep Water Fishing

[WRB]

Catt has a ton of structure fishing tips on this site, all appropriate for heart land zone of bass fishing; hill land and high land class reservoirs.

In-Fisherman is a good source for natural lakes.

As mentioned Bill Murphy's book on Pursuit of Giant Bass is well written for deep structured lakes. Bill Siemental promotes fishing the total water column; top, middle and bottom; In the Zone.

I have written a few In-Fisherman articles that can be shared via email; Rare Chance at a World record Bass and Horizontal jigging.

[Catt]

I want to reiterate again (if that's correct English) it is not the depth of water that attracts bass but rather what's under the water.

Structure fishing is not exclusively about deep water; I don't think everyone understands this. Even when I'm fishing the shoreline I'm looking for structure and not just aimlessly wondering down the shoreline. Again remember there must be a visible path of breaks and break lines on structure from deep water all the way to the bank (shallow water), this is where the bulk of food is available to game fish. It's not necessarily about putting your back to the bank as much as it is about getting off the bank. Example; the key area on a point may not be bank shallow, it maybe 15-25 yards off the bank.

Once the angler quits looking at it as shallow (bank) fishing vs deep (open) water fishing and starts concentrating on what's under the water (structure), then and only then will his consistency go up.

One should always fish the entire water column regardless of water depth.

[stratos 375]

eyedabassman,  if'n there was a debate or discussion on shallow vs. deep, I'd gladly take the shallow position. After about 15 minutes and 2 cups of coffee, the other two guys would be on the phone calling in reinforcements.

I don't think it's anywhere near a debate, just a friendly discussion. We're all just talking heads with a keyboard in cybersapce. Nothing to get anybodys shorts jammed up in their crack about.

[Catt]

eyedabassman, if'n there was a debate or discussion on shallow vs. deep, I'd gladly take the shallow position. After about 15 minutes and 2 cups of coffee, the other two guys would be on the phone calling in reinforcements.

I don't think it's anywhere near a debate, just a friendly discussion. We're all just talking heads with a keyboard in cybersapce. Nothing to get anybodys shorts jammed up in their crack about.

[eyedabassman]

eyedabassman, if'n there was a debate or discussion on shallow vs. deep, I'd gladly take the shallow position. After about 15 minutes and 2 cups of coffee, the other two guys would be on the phone calling in reinforcements.

I don't think it's anywhere near a debate, just a friendly discussion. We're all just talking heads with a keyboard in cybersapce. Nothing to get anybodys shorts jammed up in their crack about.

I think you took me the wrong way! I am by no means mad or upset! I agree with all of you,I am not trying to pick a fight> Maybe I came across in the wrong way! I just do very,very well at fishing deep water cover at night. I also fish tournaments and I fish alot of shallow water also. I think we are all on the same page!

[Matt Fly]

Alls I know is that bait ties into every equation except when they spawn during most times of the year.

     Learn to stay on top of your bait  on your favorite lake and every fish you seek, you'll  find.    Don't matter, striper, hybrid, bass, catfish all follow the shad at times, and at certain times, they let the shad move to them.   Just depends on the time of the year on how much each species moves.

   I tie the depth of the bait to the contour breaks and structure in the area. 

Other than Spawn times, tell me when KVD, one of the top 5 all time anglers of all time appoaches a body of water that doesn't start by looking for bait in the area to find a concentration of bass.

   Lake Fork is full of structure, and it don't all produce at once, something makes an area better than others, what could that be?   

   

[Hellbenderman]

I just love it when people start talking about this stuff because there are so many answers, but I didn't want this to be a debate on shallow vs. deep. Everything depends on our own individual situation and experience. I spent the late 60s, early 70s fishing shallow ponds, ten feet was deep, in Delaware. Then I moved to Alabama and my bass life changed over night. Two of my freshmen students took me under their wing really taught me to fish for bass. I thought I knew something...sheeeesh. I didn't know anything, but I learned quickly. After May, we never fished shallow. I'm sure that in the right place there are some bass in shallow, but in the middle of August, we were much more likely to find them on a creek bend in 30 feet than in shallow. I have found the same to be true in Maryland. By the end of May, bass at my lake have pulled back from the shallows and can be found in ten feet, but by late June, they are down to twenty feet plus. If I want to go fishing  July through September on my lake and consistently catch fish, I have to fish deep. It's not a preference. I love shallow water fishing. Is there anything more spooky than dog walking a spook? Gives me the heebie jeebies just thinking about it, but I could throw that thing all day in August in the same place I killed them in April, and I'd wear myself out without catching anything. In summer, in my lake, I find I have much more success fishing deep. I just feel like I'm following the fish in my lake...spawning is over I'm taking the kids and going home...hahaha. Late evening, I find them in ten to twenty. This is my situation, it may not be yours. I catch most of them on deep running cranks, 15-20+. It is more difficult. It requires obtaining info from sources other than sight and solving a puzzle. A couple things I have found to be true for deep fishing. Dissect the area you are fishing methodically, you are looking for the "point on the point", that rock pile or bush or whatever that is attracting and holding fish. Remember big bass are ambushers. They want something to hide behind. That is what you are looking for on that point in twenty feet. When you find it, beat it to death. 75% of my fish come after crashing into a stump or limb or ticking a weed bed. Make contact! So, keep talking about it. There are people who want to learn. You never know when what you say may be someone else's EUREKA moment. I'm sorry, I just get the run ons in winter...can't fish...writing about it is a fix...just hate winter...must go fish.

[Bankbeater]

A lot of the lakes around here are at most 20 to 25 feet deep, if that. About 30 years ago the fishing lakes were open from Memorial Day to Labor Day and closed the rest of the year, which made for some very heavy pressure. If you got to the lake late in the day you couldn't get the boat close to the bank because there would be a boat in the way or someone fishing from the bank. We started fishing out in the middle and discovered that we were catching when the ones hitting the bank were not.

[Paul Roberts]

Use of, or proximity to, deep water is a nearly ubiquitous element of mature fish behavior. (And that is not saying that depth isn't relative, or that many mature fish do not have other options in some waters). But learning to fish the unseen is essential for consistent fishing through the year, whether it be a 5ft hole or a 30ft ledge. Fishing the unseen is a big challenge for most anglers I think. It was slow going for me too, and still is LOL, for different reasons now.

I started deepwater fishing by recognizing that, by summer, the shallow water fishing would all but die. This was true across species: trout, salmon, pike, muskies, walleye, perch, and bass. In really shallow ponds, the answer often meant that time day (or night) weighed in heavy. But in larger deeper waters, the answer most often meant head deeper.

My first deepwater bass fishing was without electronics, and mostly meant probing progressively deeper with jigs we didn't tend to have to go too far, esp for LM. I did this by fishing the deep weed edges for LM, or drifting over clean points or boulder fields for SM the latter found by drifting with jigs. We learned to read landforms and weededges, which told us something about what lay beneath. The importance of depth changes became apparent.

This pic was from the first summer my Dad and I left the bank and ventured out onto deeper weedlines with plastic worms fished on homemade jigheads a #4 split shot crimped to a J worm hook and glass rods, sometime in the early 70s.

I had my horizons stretched a bit spending a few summers fishing in the Thousand Islands region of NY, in which weedlines were around 20ft deep due to clarity. I also found that I couldn't catch smallies off GREAT looking islands, unless they had at least 20fow around them. Here's a journal entry from that summer.

To get to know a water body without electronics pretty much meant trolling, drifting, or casting. It was time consuming but, over time, we'd find places that held fish. In summer, we'd hit the same areas but work deeper. Again, we learned to read landforms and weededges, telling us something about what lay beneath. I think MOST anglers still operate this way, even many with sonar onboard. Chuck-n-wind and see what happens. And over time, they tend to find areas and times that will produce some fish, sometime.

When electronics came into the picture for me (flashers at first), the unseen areas opened up slowly at first. For bass I just extended weedline fishing to weed edges I couldn't see, and began to find weed channels, sunken humps, drops, holes and ditches too. I would buoy things and work them like a circuit. I stuck with my (various) jigs, but added cranks, SBs, and bladebaits like the Heddon Sonar and Cordell Gay Blade esp for SM. It was amazing how many SM could be piled up on a given hump, or LM on a given deep weed point. Shallow fish are more often spread out, deep fish can be really grouped up, and it was fun to try to find things that consolidated fish.

This was entirely in natural lakes though, being in NY, so the diversity of structures found in large flooded reservoirs was, and still is, mostly foreign to me.

I now fish a number of smaller waters (up to 50 acres or so), which are quite varied in make-up. Some are gravel quarries, others are small reservoirs, the latter have some sort of creek channel (or more likely -drainage), as well as the remains of construction. They are much more difficult to fish deep without sonar as the shorelines give fewer clues to what's below, and I'm only just beginning to fathom them. Each trip I add detail to my maps. It sure is fun.

Here's a pic of a certain cove during a severe drought, to give you an idea of what can be hidden below. This may not be seen as "deep water" but during early spring these cuts hold fish, where the "flats" do not. Cast three feet off and you'd never know they were there, or how close you were.

Last year, at a small local res., I met a couple guys who appeared at lake-side with float tubes to fish just as I was pulling my tube out at near dusk. They asked how I did and I replied, Only a few. (I'd spent a lot of my time mapping away-from-shore areas -slow going in a float tube.) They got all puffed up and said, Ah, you're leaving just as it's getting good! Yesterday evening we killed em! They don't bite well during the day. I waggled my head and said, WellI've got some things to learn about this place is all. But thanks. knowing full well that what I needed to know had nothing to do with limiting my fishing time.

[WRB]

Great reply Paul and thank you sharing the piture and scketches.

Mentioned on another thread was the difference between pelagic and demersal bait fish. if the body of what where you fish doesn't have pelagic bait fish, then the predator fish have no reason to persue offshore deep water, unless the demersal bait fish are out there.

Sculpin, gobies and suckers may be out on deeper water, close or on the bottom, if the lake has those types of bait fish. Threadfin shad, gizzard shad, herring, smelt, golden shiners and sometimes crappie are pelagic bait fish that spend most of the time offshore. If the lake doesn't have those types, then near shore or near the bottom is where you should spend your time fishing.

WRB

[BigEbass]

Catt - I think that makes the most sense - you clarification set me strait! Fish all depth depending, but know your structure - I am gettin there....slowly...

Disregarding the efficacy of topwater, catch rate, or size of fish caught - it is still, IMO, the most fun part of bass fishing!! It was my first topwater tiny little alabama spotted bass caught 2 years ago that triggered my now obsession! 

Nothing beats a big ol Hog blowin up on my 7 inch pink trick worm fished on top - there is just no substitute baby!!  ;D

I will add this in addition - I have frequently in my limited fishing experience so far quickly ran to shallow good looking cover for a quick try of topwater - even dead middle of summer - those largies hunker down in the thick stuff and on some occassions they will hit topwater for 1-2 strait hours with the ferocity and frequency I have not matched yet - we caught last summer (my neighbor and I) over 20 bass in 1 hour on buzz baits at high noon in july, swealtering heat, really calm - he thought I was crazy to go to the buzz bait...it certainly wont always produce granted, but I always give it a shot for this rare occassion!

Casting the banks without any regard for what is going on does seem silly, even to me as a newB - gotta know whats going on under there!

I cant wait thought to pull me out some big ones from the depths, I hope it will bring me more consistent catches as I diversify!

[Paul Roberts]

Great reply Paul and thank you sharing the piture and scketches.

Mentioned on another thread was the difference between pelagic and demersal bait fish. if the body of what where you fish doesn't have pelagic bait fish, then the predator fish have no reason to persue offshore deep water, unless the demersal bait fish are out there.

Sculpin, gobies and suckers may be out on deeper water, close or on the bottom, if the lake has those types of bait fish. Threadfin shad, gizzard shad, herring, smelt, golden shiners and sometimes crappie are pelagic bait fish that spend most of the time offshore. If the lake doesn't have those types, then near shore or near the bottom is where you should spend your time fishing.

WRB

Thanks Tom.

Yeah, I had that thought too, that not all waters are shad (pelagic) based. My waters now are bluegill and/or yellow perch based. I have one pond, that to look at it would appear like LM water, but has good SM in it. It's bluegill based ad the SM act like LM bc that's where most of the food is most of the time -in the weeds.

[Raul]

I want to reiterate again (if that's correct English) it is not the depth of water that attracts bass but rather what's under the water.

Structure fishing is not exclusively about deep water; I don't think everyone understands this.

Man, this man and I must be mind twins, cuz the more I read what he writes the more I see he thinks like me.

Ok, let me add a little bit more salt grains. What I see is this tendency of many of the posters here is that  emphasis they put on baits, the bait is a tool and it don 't perform miracles, you may have hundreds of baits ( like me  ) but, like I said before: Learn to know your baits and learn to know your prey.

Know your baits means know how each of them works, what are it 's strong points, what are their weak points and so forth, why ? cuz you gotta choose the right tool to do the right task. But the point is that the right task depends on where you are going to fish it and trhat depends on ----> LOCATION

What I see, is this lacking of "situational awareness", it 's been said that 90% of the fish is in 10% of the water, problem is that most of the times you don 't know how to locate that 10 percent of the water that holds 90% of the fish because you don 't look with an analytical eye the surroundings, you are just there and what you see doesn 't tell you anything at all, you look and you don 't see.

Let 's put an example, an example I 've used many times in this forum:

In my neck of the woods certain tree species only grow in certain places. Willows in my neck of the woods only grow in wild form where the soil is moist year round and in the semidesertic climate I live that only happens in most cases either near a river or a creek channel.

So when I go to a lake built on my countryside the first thing I look for are drowned willow trees because I know that:

1.- The river creek channel which is structural feature is right at the feet of those trees or not far away, it means that I can expect a change not only in the contour but also a change in the depth.

2.- The river or creek channel has a different botttom composition and for what I know and have seen that bottom composition will be a mix of sand, crushed rock and boulders which will not be present above the river/creek channel.

So we have underwater: a drop, the river/creek bed, sudden change in depth, bottom composition depth, it doesn 't matter if it 's 10 ft deep or 30 ft deep, those elements will be there. 

Now let 's put another example, weeds, we don 't normally see weeds like lily pads in my neck of the woods, what we see is hornwort, elodea, hydrilla. I know that those aquatic plants can only grow as deep and the light penetrates, if the bottom contour was all flat then the weeds would cover it like a carpet, but also I know that those plants can only grow not only under ceratin circumstances of light penetration but also, they only grow where the bottom composition they prefer. Any change in the bottom composition or on the depth will cause the weeds to grow stunted or not grow at all. You see a weedbed, I study the weedbed looking for irregularities in the weed growth, because those irregularities tell me that there 's something different undernearth and that soemthing different is what I 'm looking for, a change in the structure or the structural elements because I know those changes attract the fish to it.

Study the terrain above water level, what 's above water level is most likely to continue underwater, if it looks interesting above water level then it 's interesting underwater.

[stratos 375]

in regards to all the deep water puffery, put another big "W" in the shallow water side of the discussion.

[Catt]

in regards to all the deep water puffery, put another big "W" in the shallow water side of the discussion.

Well at least he watches commercials 

[J Francho]

I asked my buddy, who lives in VA, what he meant by "deep" when talking fishing the other day, and he replied, "oh, 8' or so.  Why, what did you mean by 'deep'?"  I was thinking deep started at 20.  Its all relative.

[Paul Roberts]

'Deep' is semantic. If you fished a muddy res you may never fish deeper than 10feet, or maybe 5! If you fished a Shield Lake you may spend most of your year fishing 20+.

The one thing I see as common across the board is being able to escape from the tyranny of HAVING to cast to something visible.

...learning to fish the unseen is essential for consistent fishing through the year, whether it be a 5ft hole or a 30ft ledge. ...

[Fishing Rhino]

I wish I could contribute to this topic, but this past year was my first experience at fishing deeper water.

The ponds in this area are quite shallow, my favorite only 6 to 7 feet deep with three small 9 foot holes which may be springs.

Most of the bass in this pond are found within a hundred feet or less of the shore.   In the center there are usually huge, dense, schools of sizable (many over a pound) white perch, some crappie and yellow perch.

Very few ponds in this area exceed twenty feet in depth.  In Plymouth, MA and the Cape Cod area there are ponds of substantial depths, a few exceeding a hundred feet.

This coming season I hope to learn some things about fishing deep.

It better not be too long a learning curve.  Who knows how many years I have left to perfect the deep water thing.

I've enjoyed this thread.  One thing I've noticed about this and the other old timers thread is that as people grow older they get irritable and cranky.

Seems the youngsters have the squabbling monopoly on this forum.  ;D ;D

[SirSnookalot]

The common term for pelagic is offshore in the ocean or seas, not a lake as I see it defined, and yes there is structure out there.  Assuming one does define pelagic in reference to deep lakes as this is a fresh water site, you find the bait, you have found the fish, enticing a strike is another matter.

I grew up fishing a 1200 acre lake with depths up to 125', in those days with a rowboat and no motor for the first few years, needless to say no electronics, and to this day I have never used for freshwater.  My #1 lesson from my father was to watch the water for activity and the birds as well.  This holds true even more so in saltwater, find the bait, you have found the fish, where ever you are fishing.

[Pedigohornet]

I never saw a depth finder until about 1971.  In the mid-60's stationed at Ft. Sill I fished out of a tube.  It was here I was introduced to Bombers and later, Hellbenders.  I've cranked both many a mile through flooded timber in deeper water, at least what I considered deep back then.  Likely the definition has changed some nowadays. 

During the early 70's and the early 80's I fished lakes in Georgia, Florida and Louisiana and the deepest I ever fished was in the 25 foot range, mostly with weighted worms and some tailspinners.  Caught a lot of nice fish, but nothing big [8 plus].  All the fish over 8 pounds I've taken have been, probably, 10 feet or less. 

I find that larger fish can be found in moderately deep water year round if the cover is there, particularly woody stuff. 

It's interesting to look back over 50 years of bass fishing and find that most of my big fish were taken on three type lures; worms, spinnerbaits and diving plugs such as the Bomber and Hellbender.  That's about all a fellow need back then. 

 

[bear7625]

Like most "old timers", I started when shoreline fishing was the way most anglers were taught. It wasn't untill the little green box did we know what was below the surface. It amazed me the first time I fished my favorite lake with a sonar. A lot of things we had heard from locals growing up, simply were not true. Remember all those deep holes? Every lake had em. I have found there is a time to fish deep as well as shallow. That's what makes fishing so great. If we ever stop learning, we may as well quit fishing.   

[Paul Roberts]

OK, in response to the depth is relative end of this discussion, or the either/or side of it...

Some basic ecology -the best language I know for understanding "what goes on down there and why":

I'll start with the pithy version, then give details for those who want it: The shallows, whether they are a 10 foot deep hump in mid-lake or a long tapering point, shoreline flat, or backwater slop bay, are the kitchen. Areas relatively nearby may act as the bedroom. The areas in between are often the dining room.

More details (I bother giving them bc that's where the devil is):

Supporting the "Prime Directive" (to reproduce) is access to food (nutrients in a form a given creature can utilize). In all living systems (for all practical purposes), nutrients are produced by plants via photosynthesis, which requires access to sunlight.

In aquatic systems, for all practical purposes, photosynthesis is supported in two different ways: pelagically by plankton, and by rooted plants. From here, nutrients are passed on through a food chain/web.

Bass, like all living things, live close to their food source. For mature bass this means fish and crayfish. Both of these in turn live close to their food sources -the magnitude of "close" depends on a creatures mobility.

Key to all of this is access to sunlight. The shallows, whether they are a 10 foot deep hump in mid-lake or a long tapering point, shoreline flat, or backwater slop bay, are the kitchen. Areas relatively nearby may act as the bedroom. The areas in between are often the dining room.

Know where the primary food sources are produced in the water body in front of you. For all practical purposes, all the food is produced in the band of water called the photic zone where light penetrates. In most freshwaters, most food is produced in the limnetic zones the areas where bottom substrate meets the photic zone. The areas within the limnetic that produce the MOST nutrients is in aquatic vegetation. Pelagic nutrient production tends to be secondary compared to rooted plants in raw capacity for cranking out nutrients per unit area. But, some waters have huge pelagic areas, thus can support large pelagic food sources like shad. All waters have both planktonic and rooted production, but the relative contributions vary greatly. Rooted veges produce the most per unit area, but my be overshadowed by the sheer scale of pelagic production.

Bluegills, perch, and other fish besides the obvious ones also use pelagic food sources, as well benthicsources, which is food available in the bottom substrate. Benthic food is usually detritus based decaying nutrients produced nearby in the photic/limnetic zones. The benthic zone is thus MOST rich in nutrients closest to the source -sunlight. Crayfish and aquatic midge larvae (in soft substrates) or mayfly larvae (in harder substrates) feed a lot of shad, bluegills, perch, and other bass' prey fishes as well crayfish, in these zones. I once surprised a fishing partner by homing in on a great fishing spot in a relatively small mostly pelagic-based fishery by heading right to an area where nutrients washed in via a little drainage. Perch and bluegills were there in droves hunting midge larvae and there were bass with them of course. No noticeable classic structure either just the nutrient pile. But there was a small sharp (2-3ft) drop nearby, and a couple dead branches, that both collected bass bedrooms apparently.

OK, I tried to keep this short and sweet. The point is, the shallows (pelagic or limnetic) are where the food production is, and bass have a love/hate relationship with it. They balance access to food with physiological constraints: temperature and light exposure being key. Different fish operate within certain temperatures best, and have their limitations. Too exposed to light and they are at risk of predation from anglers, pelicans, herons, osprey, mergansers, otter, mink, muskies, pike, bigger bass, flatheads,and the list goes on.

No, this doesn't tell you where to fish at any given moment, but it provides the basics of how water systems work, and how/why they differ. And, particularly relevant to this thread, provides the fundamental definition of depth and how/why its meaning varies across waters.

[Hellbenderman]

Did I hear someone say they fished with hellbenders? Fished with them since 76. Never caught a thing on them. Worst lures in my tackle box. Don't know why I use them every time I go out. Terrible deep water lure for summer prowling in particular. If you have some, throw them away.

[Lund Explorer]

Did I hear someone say they fished with hellbenders? Fished with them since 76. Never caught a thing on them. Worst lures in my tackle box. Don't know why I use them every time I go out. Terrible deep water lure for summer prowling in particular. If you have some, throw them away.

Do we have to throw them away, or just bury them in a drawer with all those other Heddon baits?

My old Silver/Blueback Tadpolly is sort of lonesome these days.  It was the lure responsible for my first two 5lb+ LM.  Argh, in 1967.

[Fishing Rhino]

OK, in response to the depth is relative end of this discussion, or the either/or side of it...

Know where the primary food sources are produced in the water body in front of you. For all practical purposes, all the food is produced in the band of water called the photic zone where light penetrates. In most freshwaters, most food is produced in the limnetic zones the areas where bottom substrate meets the photic zone. The areas within the limnetic that produce the MOST nutrients is in aquatic vegetation. Pelagic nutrient production tends to be secondary compared to rooted plants in raw capacity for cranking out nutrients per unit area. But, some waters have huge pelagic areas, thus can support large pelagic food sources like shad. All waters have both planktonic and rooted production, but the relative contributions vary greatly. Rooted veges produce the most per unit area, but my be overshadowed by the sheer scale of pelagic production.

Bluegills, perch, and other fish besides the obvious ones also use pelagic food sources, as well benthicsources, which is food available in the bottom substrate. Benthic food is usually detritus based decaying nutrients produced nearby in the photic/limnetic zones. The benthic zone is thus MOST rich in nutrients closest to the source -sunlight. Crayfish and aquatic midge larvae (in soft substrates) or mayfly larvae (in harder substrates) feed a lot of shad, bluegills, perch, and other bass' prey fishes as well crayfish, in these zones. I once surprised a fishing partner by homing in on a great fishing spot in a relatively small mostly pelagic-based fishery by heading right to an area where nutrients washed in via a little drainage. Perch and bluegills were there in droves hunting midge larvae and there were bass with them of course. No noticeable classic structure either just the nutrient pile. But there was a small sharp (2-3ft) drop nearby, and a couple dead branches, that both collected bass bedrooms apparently.

OK, I tried to keep this short and sweet. The point is, the shallows (pelagic or limnetic) are where the food production is, and bass have a love/hate relationship with it. They balance access to food with physiological constraints: temperature and light exposure being key. Different fish operate within certain temperatures best, and have their limitations. Too exposed to light and they are at risk of predation from anglers, pelicans, herons, osprey, mergansers, otter, mink, muskies, pike, bigger bass, flatheads,and the list goes on.

No, this doesn't tell you where to fish at any given moment, but it provides the basics of how water systems work, and how/why they differ. And, particularly relevant to this thread, provides the fundamental definition of depth and how/why its meaning varies across waters.

I have a question regarding the above.  First, a description of my favorite pond.  Half mile long, quarter mile wide.  Mostly a very rocky shoreline with abundant vegetation along the shoreline.  Purple loosestrife the predominant plant, but also reeds, arrowhead, and a few patches of very tall grasses tight to the shore.  Lily pad beds in a few places.

The pond is about six feet deep everywhere but the rocky shelf around the shoreline.

There are three nine foot holes which are probably springs.

Away from the shore, the bottom is predominantly, if not totally a soft mud, probably sediment washed into the pond from the surrounding land.  The pond sits in a hollow.

There is no vegetation to my knowlege in the six foot depths.  When I have anchored in this area, the anchor comes up with nothing but mud.  No mussels, no gravel, no plant life, just a soft sticky mud.

That bottom is absolutely featureless save for the three small holes.  The bottom echo never changes.

The pond has a large biomass of white perch.  I have seen the screen on my sounder turn black several times because the school is so dense.

I have fished these schools with a small Mepps spinner and caught white perch after white perch that are over a pound.  Occasionally, I'll pull in a crappie, and very rarely a yellow perch, but not a bluegill or any other of the sunfish family.

Only once did I manage to catch largemouth bass away from the shore.  And I did get into a school, catching a half dozen or so while anchored.  I took some bearings from landmarks to be able to go back to that spot again, but never got a hit after that.

It's possible that someone tossed a few Christmas trees at that place, and I stumbled onto it by pure luck.  Not having a sounder at the time, to check out the bottom to which I was casting, leaves me clueless. 

The bass may have been hanging in that spot or merely moving through.

Here's my question.

What is your best conclusion regarding what is sustaining such a large population of white perch?  Would it be the midge larvae?

There have been a few times when all is quiet and calm that I have seen the surface thick with some type of hatch.  So thick that at first glance it looks like a layer of dust or pollen on the surface.  Close examination reveals it to be otherwise.

There are a pair of Osprey which have a nest nearby, and are usually seen "fishing" everyday.  There is also a pair of Grey Heron, but they wade in the shallows feeding on smaller than trophy fish.  A snowy egret or two are also regularly seen.  The worst are three or four cormorants which fish the "bassless waters" inhabited by the white perch.