See the panfish???

Tennessee river ft loudoun lake 

Cool, but why does your cursor show you in 6' or less water and your depth says 27.9'?  Not bashing, just curious.

 

SE Kansas grass grower

1 hour ago, Sprocket said:

Cool, but why does your cursor show you in 6' or less water and your depth says 27.9'?  Not bashing, just curious.

 

SE Kansas grass grower

No clue, satellite innacuracy is my guess. sonar works tho! It might be in meters instead of feet or something. The lake is down about 6 ft below normal currently 

That Elite gives a good image.

On 1/6/2018 at 3:43 AM, Comfortably Numb said:

That Elite gives a good image.

It has been an awesome unit. Black Friday deal for $200 I think a few years back 

On 1/4/2018 at 7:01 AM, Sprocket said:

Cool, but why does your cursor show you in 6' or less water and your depth says 27.9'?  Not bashing, just curious.

 

SE Kansas grass grower

Mapping is only as accurate as the data programmed into it. You can see from the down image, there is a ledge that goes from 6 to 27ft in a relatively short distance. The factory maps or card is off. Many of these maps were made from USGS and Army Corps of Engineers surveys and suffer from the inaccuracy of man.

Need to get a 1' Navonics map for the lake. The elevation lines don't match the depth shading light to darker blue or the shore contour, it's worthless.

I can't determine what the school of small fish are other than bait fish near cover, could be Shad and larger fish in the area that you metered.

Tom

 

 

 

1 hour ago, WRB said:

Need to get a 1' Navonics map for the lake. The elevation lines don't match the depth shading light to darker blue or the shore contour, it's worthless.

I can't determine what the school of small fish are other than bait fish near cover, could be Shad and larger fish in the area that you metered.

Tom

 

 

 

They were bluegill and crappie, I caught them. I don't need to be upgrading maps although it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I just use the lines for a general idea to avoid shallow spots and stumps. Staying somewhat close to the path you came in on doesn't hurt. I don't rely on it for accuracy just a general path. Methinks I should have just posted the bottom half of the photo, my intention was for people to see the panfish. I just like marking schools and being able to identify them by catching 

It's not your feeling, it's you are wasting a lot of time. 5' elevation maps are ok for navigation, poor to study structure with good details.  A map that is 20' off in depth is dangerous to navigate with. With good depth details you can study the map at home and add way points to check out when on the water.

Catching or seeing fish is always the best way to identify them.

Tom

42 minutes ago, WRB said:

It's not your feeling, it's you are wasting a lot of time. 5' elevation maps are ok for navigation, poor to study structure with good details.  A map that is 20' off in depth is dangerous to navigate with. With good depth details you can study the map at home and add way points to check out when on the water.

Catching or seeing fish is always the best way to identify them.

Tom

I know an upgrade would help but Navigation was still possible before lowrance. One of the most dangerous things you can do where I  fish is to watch electronics while on plane

3 hours ago, TnRiver46 said:

They were bluegill and crappie, I caught them. I don't need to be upgrading maps although it wouldn't hurt my feelings. I just use the lines for a general idea to avoid shallow spots and stumps. Staying somewhat close to the path you came in on doesn't hurt. I don't rely on it for accuracy just a general path. Methinks I should have just posted the bottom half of the photo, my intention was for people to see the panfish. I just like marking schools and being able to identify them by catching 

No need to take offense, nobody's getting on you because of the deficits of the equipment, just making suggestions. the difference between the factory installed mapping and the card with 1ft contours(if available for your lake) is the latter was probably scanned rather than made from a survey.

That's a pretty thick school of panfish. How many did you catch? Here's a couple pics of panfish. The 2d shot I followed around for close to 2 hours and caught well over 100 fish. The imaging shot was a school of 8" white bass. Too small to keep but fun to catch.

@slonezp caught 5-6 crappie and maybe a dozen bluegill in an hour, if you could get the bait to sink properly in the current they hit it every time