The primary lake I fish is 8 feet at the deepest points, and usually can see my lure at about 2-3 feet deep

( straight off the side of the boat ). Is this considered clear or stained water. Just wondering, for lure color choice.

Water clarity is relative to your area.

To me that is muddy water. To some it might be just stained.

There are lakes up/over here that you can see bottom in 30ft of water.

I just hit his one a couple days ago. I'll paste it below...the lowdown on "clarity" vs "visibility". If you take the time to read it through I think it will help.

As to lure "color", the way I see it, it's a balance across the range of lure visibility vs obscurity. The mood, spookiness, of the fish as well as immediate sky and water conditions will dictate. But only the fish can really tell you in any given place and time.

First...

Visibility and clarity are separate things. Clarity pertains to the purity of water. Visibility pertains to the distance light can travel in water. Clarity affects visibility.

Clarity:

I do not use simply clear, stained, muddy bc they don't say enough. Clarity is how much light can penetrate water before being absorbed. Pure water (nothing dissolved or suspended) allows light to penetrate, suffice it to say, very deep. But no water is pure. It has:

-Suspended materials, usually algae (usually green), or soil (usually tan-brown often like coffee with cream in it).

-Dissolved materials: Usually tannins and others substances dissolved from plant and soils from the surrounding land. These, esp tannins, tend to be a reddish brown.

These can be a consistent water color or they can be transient, due to events. In my very clear ponds phytoplankton (algae) blooms following sunny periods turn the water green'. When we have lots of rain, and water levels flood shoreline plant-life, the water becomes stained due to the dissolved organics. Heavy rain may wash in both suspended and dissolved soil of course -mud. All these things reduce visibility.

Visibility:

Visibility is related to clarity in that it's how far light can penetrate in inches or feet.

The standard way of measuring visibility is to take a white lure and lower it down until it disappears and measure. Then bring it back up until it reappears and measure. Average the two. But this only tells you how far YOU can see down! To get an equal amount of light to reach a fish's eye, who's already down in the water, you then DOUBLE that number. The reason you double it is bc for you to see an object from the surface, the light has to penetrate to the object, then reflect back up to your eye; doubling the distance the light has to travel for you to see that reflection back up at the surface.

Sothe amount of light needed to illuminate the white jig you lowered down is actually double the distance. You got a surface visibility of 10ft, but that same amount of light can actually penetrate ~20ft. If you were a diver, you'd see that white jig just as well at ~20feet (in front of your nose of course).

Sohow does this work underwater for fish? Think how far light has to travel to an object of interest, and reflect over to a fish. How far away is the object from the surface and how far away from the object is the fish? Add it up. That's how light works in clear water.

Now add dissolved, or worse, suspended material and light gets absorbed, reducing visibility (distance). But light is absorbed differentially by foreign material, that is, different colors are absorbed or reflected. Algae blooms reflect green and absorb reds and blues (bc chlorophyll in these tiny plants use red and blue light, but not green). Tannins stain water a reddish brown bc they absorb greens and reflect reds and some blues. But these colors are only seen near the surface as light is quickly attenuated in affected waters.

So, for the upshot, I categorize my waters by visibility in feet or inches. I do not lower a white lure, but just how far I can see bottom, or weed tops. Then I make note of either suspended or dissolved materials and it's color'. In my neck of the woods that tends to be green from blooms, occasionally reddish from dissolved material, or rarely, muddy brown from washed in mud.

I record: clarity in feet (never inches here where I fish), water color and why (dissolved, suspended, blooms, erosion, etc..). I choose tackle according to this and the rest of the visibility factors (see Roger's table below).

As to lure "color", that's a MUCH more complicated subject, in my book, and I'm not yet learned enough to tackle it to my satisfaction, but I'm workin' on it.

Clarity pertains to the purity of water

Hmmm, maybe "transparency" would be a better word than 'purity'.

Many deadly toxins are crystal clear

Secchi disks aside, this is a simplistic version that I compiled:

Underwater Visibility

(Six Variables)

> Sun Angle       (RANGE: Midday (max angle above horizon) to Midnight (max angle below horizon)

> Water Clarity (RANGE: Crystal-clear to Muddy)

> Sky Clarity (RANGE: Cloud-free to Heavy Overcast)

> Wave Action (RANGE: Flat (minimal refraction) to Sharp Chop (max refraction)

> Sun or Shade (RANGE: Full Sun to Full Shade (a wild card that can vary within the same retrieve)

> Lure Depth (Even gin-clear water has a twilight depth)

Roger

Clarity pertains to the purity of water

Hmmm, maybe "transparency" would be a better word than 'purity'.

A lot of deadly toxins are crystal clear ;D

Secchi disks aside, this is a simplistic version that I found in my own notes:

Underwater Visibility

(Six Variables)

> Sun Angle       (RANGE: Midday (max angle above horizon) to Midnight (max angle below horizon)

> Water Clarity (RANGE: Crystal-clear to Muddy)

> Sky Clarity (RANGE: Cloud-free to Heavy Overcast)

> Wave Action (RANGE: Flat (minimal refraction) to Sharp Chop (max refraction)

> Lure Depth (Even gin-clear water has a twilight depth)

> Sun or Shade (RANGE: Full Sun to Full Shade (the wild card)

Roger

Nice table Roger. I can't think of anything else to add to it.

Water can be "impure" with anything, not just toxins  -except water. ;D

So, tell me all, was my answer too complicated?

So, tell me all, was my answer too complicated?

No, but it might be difficult to apply while standing in a boat 

Roger

I guess I should have said: Look over the side and see how far down you can see.

Instead, I offered definitions of what clear, stained, muddy actually mean.

Some things are better kept simple.

Some things are better kept simple.

+1 BILLION.

When I can toss a dime in Bull Shoals in 20 fow and see if it land heads or tails up the water is clear. ;D

Some things are better kept simple.

+1 BILLION.

That's a personal choice.

The way I see it, understanding fishing is about understanding nature. And it's far from simple.

But I understand your point. You don't need to understand nature to go fishing, or to catch a bunch of fish. It's what floats my boat is all. Writing answers to people's questions helps me collect ideas better. Like everyone, I'm here to learn and that's what I'm doing, in my own way.

Some things are better kept simple.

+1 BILLION.

That's a personal choice.

The way I see it, understanding fishing is about understanding nature. And it's far from simple.

You really don't have to defend yourself . I enjoy your in depth analysis of the whats and whys.

I think cabin fever is really setting in here .

Thanks, BB.

Some things are better kept simple.

+1 BILLION.

That's a personal choice.

The way I see it, understanding fishing is about understanding nature. And it's far from simple.

But I understand your point. You don't need to understand nature to go fishing, or to catch a bunch of fish. It's what floats my boat is all. Writing answers to people's questions helps me collect ideas better. Like everyone, I'm here to learn and that's what I'm doing, in my own way.

Nothing wrong with your response at all.

Just for me, I like to keep things simple, when it comes to some things.

That was a great post Paul.