RW could you move the posts about sites to another thread so we can focus on the question at hand and get more opinions?

If I hear what the warrior is cooking, those fish already spawning are staying on their original beds although they're now off-shore?

No, this was the first weekend in June, 2002 and the smallmouth (we think) were still staging in pre-spawn mode. Bull Shoals is a huge reservior and very deep. The rising, cold water had the entire lake population confused and the spawn delayed.

On a side note, as a result of the shoreline flooding, recruitment for year class 2002 was estimated at 95% which is virtually impossible! Right now (2008) there should be more 4-6 lb smallmouth in this lake than there have ever been. I hope to find out in a few weeks.

p.s. Water conditions were similar in the spring of 2004, but estimated survival for that year's smallmouth spawn was -0- The two year olds had a feast!

8-)

Looks like my post was the last "on topic" so lets go from here...

Bull Shoals might be typical of high water conditions. As noted in the fishing report, the bass that are being caught are in deeper water, not shallow.  

so were you catching those fish 30 feet deep since it was so high or did they come up with the levels

Generally, the fish were staging where the shoreline would normally be, among the trees that would be along the bank. Sometimes our tubes would make it to the bottom and we would catch smallmouth 30' deep, but more often they were scattered in the water column. They were related to the "cover" which in this case was full grown trees!

Now here is the current report. You will notice that the smallmouth are still deep, but largemouth have moved up into creeks:

http://www.bullshoals.com/fishingreport/

8-)

I'm new to this forum and fish alot of the same lakes you guys do. I was curious to know if you guys do catch and release or take these bigger fish home. I hear alot about Mercer and plan to check it out this weekend, if anyone familiar with the lake wants to meet up let me know.

As far as I know we as a forum are mostly catch and release when it comes to bass but it is a heated topic so...

I will just ask politely that if you catch fish at Mercer or any of the local lakes (bass inparticular) you return them to the water to preserve the fisheries. Small ones every now and then are fine, but leave big mamas in there PLEASE.

If you wanna take your perch and catfish home that's fine.

RW, that's crazy that they were relating to actual trees lol. But not so much so if you look at other local lakes around us like Lake Curtis in stafford which has full grown trees in the water. Be interesting fishing there right now in a boat. I'd imagine dropping a jig down the line of the tree could be pretty effective. Though finding the water depth they are holding at must be a struggle at times like these.

Welcome aboard!

Just about everyone here at BassResource.com releases their big fish.

I know we have guys that have mounted a few and I think (hope)

everyone will harvest some of the smaller fish. But as far as big fish

go, we are all dedicated to C&R.

8-)

Put 'em back, once they pass 2lbs or so they don't taste great anyway.

RW, that's crazy that they were relating to actual trees lol.  But not so much so if you look at other local lakes around us like Lake Curtis in stafford which has full grown trees in the water.  Be interesting fishing there right now in a boat.  I'd imagine dropping a jig down the line of the tree could be pretty effective.  Though finding the water depth they are holding at must be a struggle at times like these.

anyway back on topic, yet again

feel free to make a new topic with other questions class 8-)

Jcrzy i'm pretty sure all the trees in curtis are years and years dead, have you seen some with live limbs with leaves and such?

I bet you could run a tackle shop off the amount of lures you'd find in there

I'm going out to fish some high water now. I'll let you know my most recent opinion on it after I get back...

Well, let's break this down a little further. Although the trees are technically "cover" they should be viewed as "structure" in this instance. When you look at wilderness, the trees and brush vary in height. So, surrounding the highest trees are trees half the size and 5-10' high brush covering the bottom. Although the absolute depth was 30' or more, the effective depth varied. We had a perfect scenario: structure associated with thick cover immediately adjacent to deeper water. We were fishing in coves that would normally be associated with mainpoints, all have access to the main lake or channel.

8-)

Moving this thread to "General" for more comments.