Team9nine

Last page - Highland_Reservoirs_4.pdf

Part 3 - Highland_Reservoirs_3.pdf

Part II - Highland_Reservoirs_2.pdf

Good points all. One quick clarification or reminder on John Hope's book and tracking. He found and labeled three different types of bass; shallow fish - which never went deep or suspended, mid-layer fish - which suspended when inactive and moved to breaklines and depth contours when active; and deep fish that never went shallow (except to spawn). His book focused almost solely on the behavior of these mid-layer fish, which he felt was the more overlooked or misunderstood population of bass. deep: what is your reasoning for classifying rock as structure? Do you have any delineation based on size of rock? Just curious. I've never considered rock as structure - I always group it as cover, though I did once find an article that Buck referred to it as "structure-like" when in the form of a rock reef on a natural lake. aavery2: thermoclines are breaklines. In some lakes (2-story lakes) there is enough oxygen below them to support a whole other group of fish (like lake trout, cisco, etc.), but in many of the waters from the Midwest south, the thermocline and the oxycline tend to be one and the same. In those cases, your point is an important one, as you simply won't have fish living for any length of time below a thermocline where oxygen isn't present in sufficient amounts to support life. In those cases, the thermocline becomes the limiting "deep water" barrier, and many fish will stack up on this breakline as the deepest water they can attain. In those cases, you can simply eliminate anything deeper water wise, though you have to be very careful and studious in examining your water for this phenomenon. Something as simple as a low water relief outlet at the dam can often create enough current or movement of water to disrupt a traditional thermocline. Things can get weird quick on some waters. Since it was mentioned by the OP, and I having access to most all of Buck's material, I'll post another reservoir piece concerning highland lakes (and smallmouth) as a matter of discussion. It also ties in nicely with several of the points already mentioned. Again, I tried to load the full document first, as well as all the "parts" separately but in a single post, and in both cases the forum restrictions didn't allow this. As such, this will be 4 parts in 4 posts to accomplish. - Sorry for this - -T9 Here's the first part. Highland_Reservoirs_1.pdf

Here's a few from my 798ci HD SI with compact (standard) transducer. Wayne, feel free to comment/correct anything I've labeled incorrectly. -T9 BLUEGILL SPAWNING BEDS SUBMERGED BRIDGE WITH RIPRAP BANK LINING ROADBED INTO CHANNEL AND CRAPPIE SUSPENDED AROUND/UNDER BRIDGE SCHOOL OF WHITE BASS HIGH IN WATER COLUMN WITH REFLECTED SHADOWS ON BOTTOM FEEDER CREEK SPLITTING A POINT WITH A LARGE WASHED IN TREE IN THE MOUTH

This ^^^ No superstitions or lucky things whatsoever. Never have believed in that. Half the time I'm not even certain what I'll end up fishing for. Carry enough tackle to handle everything from crappie to bass to walleye to wipers on most trips. If I start for one thing and run into another, that works, too. Anymore, whatever bends the pole the best that day is what I'm catching most trips. -T9

Just a first thought on the areas I'd focus on from your map. Obviously missing things like depths, exact bottom conditions, etc., so take with a grain of salt. Bottom line looks like 3 distinct areas of focus to me. As for your other picture showing the point and lack of cover - nice hard bottom (clay?) with scattered rock/gravel from the looks of it. While I can't determine exact size of the larger rocks/boulders in the picture, don't overlook them as key "breaks" on that spot, along with any bottom transition areas possibly off to the side. Mike Long did a great piece where he took a replica of his 22# bass and held it up or placed it next to some rocks/boulders during a low water period on one of his CA lakes. His point was to remind you that it doesn't take an extremely large piece of cover to provide a big bass a significant break to relate to. Buck would state it as what seems insignificant to you might look like a mountain to a fish from his perspective. -T9

THIS ^^^ It's a form of revenue sharing - kind of like all the original 24 owning stock in the "company" or product, and when the company profits, the "investors" (the pros) get a share of those profits. That said, the newer "Select" competitors had to buy their way in to be a part of the deal. They all paid a hefty price to be there and compete for the 6 slots available. MLF is the equivalent of a "made for TV" movie. The competition is real, and everybody wants to win, but it's very manageable from a television standpoint to put cameras and officials in every boat due to the limited field and the nature of the bracket format. No way you could afford to do this with a normal BASS or FLW event from the beginning, which is why the first two days are usually skipped over for the most part, and detailed television coverage begins after the field is cut to 20 or whatever. -T9

This thread was started by Catt, who carried over a question from another thread and started a new one. He answered that question in the following 5 sentences of his reply. At that point should we have just locked the thread? Was this meant as a private conversation between these two, and not an open forum discussion? Did I miss that part somewhere? Do we need a new forum section, perhaps titled "Ask Catt" to avoid this issue in the future? After someone else added their thoughts in the original thread, Deep replied: "Thank you. I was hoping some of the members newer to fishing structure would take this forward." - So confusing...I apologized for having to use 6 threads, but BR post limits of 750 kb make posting any attachment of size in a single venture impossible. Trust me, would have been a whole lot simpler for me if I could have done a single post with just one attachment. The bottom line is there are about half a dozen of us who obviously have our own opinions and approaches on this structure stuff, and are all willing to post in an effort to help answer questions and provide insight to BR readers. You (Roger) have been just as guilty, if you want to call it that, by posting in every single structure thread, too. Could you not be accused of thread hijacking in that regard also? My approach to structure fishing is based upon Buck's original insights. If you or others think that is 50 year old outdated information, that's your prerogative. Carry on with your 'egg to grave' analysis, Roger - whatever works for you. My guess is that we all (Deep, A-Jay, J Francho, Catt, WRB, Dwight, etc.) catch more than our fair share of fish with our respective approaches, and readers can evaluate for themselves what they like or what they don't about any of our thoughts on the matter. Next time, perhaps the OP should just clarify at the start of a thread which ones are open to discussion and which ones are private conversations so we don't end up off track like this again -T9

Since this one hasn't been addressed yet, I'll throw out one thought. This also ties in with the discussion going on about northern/natural lakes. That thought is a structure fisherman treats all lakes the same. Erie is no different. Neither would a glacial northern lake be. Buck actually stated many times that northern natural lakes were quite simple really since they had limited structural features when compared to man-made reservoirs. Anyway, back on Erie - same story. Identify the deepest water in the area you're fishing, then look for structure, breaks and breaklines in those areas. Ideally you want all 4 components in the same general/limited area. Keep in mind seasonal guidelines also. For example, during pre-spawn/spawn time, you'd expect the bulk of the fish to be located more shallow than say summer or possibly even fall. Where you find those 4 components together on a map is "fishing water." Where you find just one or two here and there is "trolling water." In other words, you spend a lot less time in trolling water vs. fishing water. But again, when you start to fish the areas you've identified, you first go shallow in your efforts to locate fish, then progressively move deeper as needed. The western basin of Erie, which I think most anglers tend to think of when you mention Erie, really only has about a 40' maximum depth (one or two slight exceptions), so that makes things even easier. What complicates things is its massive size. Reefs and breaklines can run for miles. Takes some getting used to, but once you expand your outlook and perspective in that regard, it still comes down to the same components you look for and fish on reservoirs. That is the beauty of the system. Not the only way to approach the problem, but one good way to. -T9

Yellow/chartreuse/lime fan here, but mostly because the majority of my braid fishing is with jigs and other similar baits. Like knowing exactly where that line is and what it is doing. Green for frogging though, and have use smoke and red for some other applications. -T9

Article Part VI Buck_Res_Part_6.pdf

Article Part V Buck_Res_Part_5.pdf

Article Part IV Buck_Res_Part_4.pdf

Article Part III Buck_Res_Part_3.pdf

Article Part II Buck_Res_Part_2.pdf

Deep - and others: My apologies for having to do this post in (6) sections, but file size limitations require it. Hopefully this all works, as it might answer a lot of questions. This is one of Buck's better articles from Fishing Facts magazine that he published concerning the basics of using reservoir structures to locate fish. Note/edit: Catt covered much of this in his "Demystifying Structure" thread. The article helps make it easier to understand what he was talking about since it has so many pictures/examples included. -T9 Buck_Res_Part_1.pdf

You are in good shape then. If you liked Bill's book, you'll also like Spoonplugging. The similarity and overlapping concepts between the two might surprise you, but there's good reason for that -T9

Regardless of what your thoughts or fishing philosophy might be, Buck's book (Spoonplugging) is one of those that everyone should read at some point. In a different thread, Roger just mentioned another, that being Jason Lucas' book (Lucas On Bass). A few others I would have to add to everyone's list are Robert Page Lincoln's book (Black Bass Fishing), the Bill Murphy/Paul Prorok book (In Pursuit of Giant Bass), and Dr, Keith Jones' book (Knowing Bass). But first take your time with "Spoonplugging". There's a lot to digest in there -T9

Perry's main book was "Spoonplugging: Your Guide to Lunker Catches", often referred to as the Green book. He also had a smaller booklet called "Spoonplugging for freshwater bass and all game fish" which preceded the Green book. Then there was the 9-part home study series that came after the Green book, and went into a lot more detail on specifics. Then there are a ton of old articles he wrote while Education Editor for Fishing Facts (~105 or so, I believe). As for fishing shallow first, Buck basically created a process anglers should follow to quickly figure out where the fish are and how you can catch them. In many cases, especially in instances of a body of water being fairly new to you or that you haven't fished much, you start shallow for several reasons. First, it gives you a defined process to quickly eliminate water layers systematically to determine where fish are active (or not). Start shallow and work deeper until you start catching fish, instead of just assuming or haphazardly jumping around trying different depths. Also, shallower fish tend to be a bit more active, usually there to feed. Being more active, you can usually get by with a little less perfect presentation - they'll frequently move to the bait instead of you having to put it right on its nose. You also get a chance to get a feel for the lake, seeing cover options like weed growth and weedlines, checking bottom hardness, determining water clarity, finding possible structures, etc., all things that might help point you in the right direction when trying to catch fish on a lake. Doing so also helps you learn a lake. Buck always stated he never wanted to come off a lake not knowing more about it than when he first arrived. This process helps in that regard. Additionally, you tend to have better lure control shallow. The deeper you go, usually the more accurate your presentation has to be. Anyone can drop a jig into a bush in 4' of water, but put that same bush on a breakline in 25' of water, and how many people can now drop that jig into the bush? The fish still tend to use the bush (a "break") the same way regardless of depth. Of course, if you are very familiar with a lake or some of its specific structure situations already, you can go straight to fishing the known contact points, breaks and breaklines appropriately without going through the whole process if you choose to. Consider it a shortcut for the hard work you already put in, if you will. Doesn't always work out, but saves time if it does. The simple fact is every fishing day is different. Some days you might whack them on top of a point fishing a topwater, and others days you won't catch any unless you're dragging a football jig deeper on the same point. Having a process you use every time out to quickly establish depth can be a nice benefit to anglers. -T9

Not Catt, so I don't want to speak for him, but Perry had clear definitions of "deep water" (water greater than 8'-10'), as well as stating in his basic guideline that the "deep, or deepest water in the area being fished" was what he considered the 'home or 'sanctuary' depth. He also stated that ideally, this would always be at least 20' deep, though he also realized that those depths aren't always an option on some waters (or sections of waters), and made clear how to address/fish such situations and what to expect in the way of fish behavior. I'm pretty old school in this regard, and stick to the original terminology as best as possible. The problem becomes, if we all can't agree upon, or all choose to use our own definition of any of these terms, or our own terms completely, there is likely no way we will ever come to agreement on things because we're not starting and arguing the merits based on the same words and definitions. It also makes it tremendously confusing for any newer anglers, or anglers unfamiliar with structure theory, to figure out what is right or wrong when everyone has their own terms and definitions. On the deep-to-shallow migration theory, that is a bit oversold in my book. He later tweaked that concept slightly, and the basic guideline that has been in place now for the past 20-25 years addresses this supposed happening. He wrote about this extensively in a 1986 article entitled, "What I Did Not Say About Structure Fishing." Oops - on the ledge running on a point...I'd need to have a clearer picture of exactly what you are envisioning to be able to give a definite answer. The basic procedures are always, troll the shallows, then cast the shallows. Then troll the deep water, then cast the deep water, at least to properly fish a particular structure thoroughly, and assuming the waters (and regs) are conducive to doing so. You always interpret from the deepest water, but begin fishing in the shallowest. -T9

Gamakatsu for darn near everything... -T9

Nothing smaller than a 30 in the Pflueger-type sizes, or 2000-2500 in the Daiwa/Shimano lineup. -T9

Haven't tried the SK Lucky Shad, and at $6.29 I likely won't anytime soon unless I hear some really good reports on them. Have used the Flicker Shads a bunch, and at $3.99 (which you can usually find them cheaper pretty regularly), plus more colors and more sizes than the SKs, it's an easy call for me. I also have a bunch of Shad Raps, so between the two baits, my shad bait box is covered well. Like most any other bait, the lighter the line, the better the action, though in the larger sizes you could probably get by fine with 12#. I tend to use 8# the most, and 10# if around big fish or heavier cover. -T9