Let’s say the thermocline is at 12 foot and you have brush piles in 18 but they top off in about 14. Do you go check them to see if they are suspended over them or is it better to just fish the ones in the right depth. 
 

I know it doesn’t hurt to check but I’m just trying to think on average what is the best plan 

13 minutes ago, GoneFishingLTN said:

Let’s say the thermocline is at 12 foot and you have brush piles in 18 but they top off in about 14. Do you go check them to see if they are suspended over them or is it better to just fish the ones in the right depth. 
 

I know it doesn’t hurt to check but I’m just trying to think on average what is the best plan 

 

So far, my experience has been that the ones suspended over deeper water are really hard to target or catch.

 

I'd focus on the intersection of the depth of your thermocline and structure with good cover on it that also has baitfish in the area and you should do great!

I don't.  If the thermocline is at 12 foot, I'm looking for brush piles that start around 12 feet or less.  If the brush doesn't even extend up to the thermocline, I'll usually pass on it.  You might find suspended fish above those brush piles you mentioned, but targeting suspended fish is tough work.  They tend to not be very aggressive.  I prefer to spend my time chasing fish that are more active.  Then again, I don't have FFS, and targeting suspended fish with FFS is a lot easier.

 

Typically this time of year, I'll get out on a lake and get out over some deep water to find the thermocline.  Then I'll mark some transition areas on my map that occur at the depth of the thermocline.  I might not fish them right away, as I'll usually fish the skinny water first, but those spots I marked are usually the deepest I'll go.  

Just making sure I understand what you guys are saying..... you'll identify the thermocline....say it's at 20 feet. You'll look for brushpiles or rockpiles at exactly 20ft or less.... Would you consider the deepest ones exactly where they intersect the thermocline to be the "juice?" Or can shallower ones be just as good? 

Just now, RHuff said:

Just making sure I understand what you guys are saying..... you'll identify the thermocline....say it's at 20 feet. You'll look for brushpiles or rockpiles at exactly 20ft or less.... Would you consider the deepest ones exactly where they intersect the thermocline to be the "juice?" Or can shallower ones be just as good? 

 

 

How hot is your surface temperature currently and how hot was it last week?

1 minute ago, Pat Brown said:

 

 

How hot is your surface temperature currently and how hot was it last week?

 

My last two times out I fished two different lakes one was 80 and the other was 81 

They're gonna still be loaded up shallow.  That's not only 'not terribly hot', it's optimum temperature for a shad spawn and bluegill spawning, so you should be fine targeting bass up shallow still.

 

Some bluegill will spawn deep and will use those steep drops with hard cover that intersect with the thermocline.  Especially when they also intersect with shadelines.

 

Big bass will gravitate towards all of this.

4 minutes ago, RHuff said:

you'll identify the thermocline....say it's at 20 feet. You'll look for brushpiles or rockpiles at exactly 20ft or less.... Would you consider the deepest ones exactly where they intersect the thermocline to be the "juice?" Or can shallower ones be just as good? 

IME, it depends on the body of water and the available food source. Some lakes are just much better deep water lakes than others, while some are much better shallower lakes. Either can be good, though. We tend to have flatland impoundments with stained water and little to no submerged vegetation (but some emergents), so shallower is usually better. As Pat mentioned, we’re still coming off a crayfish and bluegill diet phase, so the bulk of activity has been to the shallower side of things despite the developing thermocline. Other species are starting to utilize it though.

1 hour ago, Team9nine said:

IME, it depends on the body of water and the available food source. Some lakes are just much better deep water lakes than others, while some are much better shallower lakes. Either can be good, though. We tend to have flatland impoundments with stained water and little to no submerged vegetation (but some emergents), so shallower is usually better. As Pat mentioned, we’re still coming off a crayfish and bluegill diet phase, so the bulk of activity has been to the shallower side of things despite the developing thermocline. Other species are starting to utilize it though.

 

 I hope that's the case near me...  that things offshore is just starting to get good! 

11 hours ago, RHuff said:

Just making sure I understand what you guys are saying..... you'll identify the thermocline....say it's at 20 feet. You'll look for brushpiles or rockpiles at exactly 20ft or less.... Would you consider the deepest ones exactly where they intersect the thermocline to be the "juice?" Or can shallower ones be just as good? 

 

I guess this was a stupid question looking back on it as baitfish won’t be below the thermocline ?

14 hours ago, RHuff said:

 

I guess this was a stupid question looking back on it as baitfish won’t be below the thermocline ?

No question is "stupid". I fish rivers so the thermocline does not matter, however every little bit of info gleaned from these questions make me a better fisherman. Next time I lake fish I will remember that the bait fish will be above the thermocline because of this thread.

What's really stupid is when people are afraid to ask questions. This is a good discussion and we're all learning something here.

If you can identify the thermocline you can also identify the depth a large population of the baitfish are relating to. The thermocline will be the max depth I fish but the depth  ,in my case,  shad are holding is where I concentrate.