Fishing gurus, experts, or just hacks like me???

[dpear]

It's now official.Some parts of the lake suck(Franks dock)and some are hot(a friends dock elsewhere on the lake).Of course,I'm on the 'suck' end.

[NETim]

It's now official.Some parts of the lake suck(Franks dock)and some are hot(a friends dock elsewhere on the lake).Of course,I'm on the 'suck' end.

Your boat is STILL broke down? Bummer!

[dpear]

Was reviewing and working on some stuff and ran across this oldie.Believe it or not,I wasn't drinking-and probably not thinking either.

"
‘ STRUCTURE’-WHAT THE HECK IS THAT?

Well ,to be honest,I’m not sure anymore.Based on questions I’ve been asked via e-mail or following seminars,I’m clearly not alone.I suspect asking ten fishermen would generate ten different definitions.What at face value may seem straight forward to many,perhaps really isn’t anymore.Should we care?I would think we ought to.I sure do.We often hear things like 90% of the fish are in 10% of the water.Well,whether true or not on any given body of water,its clear there’s a lot of sterile water out there and therefore if,as I believe, the fish are related to structure,seems to me we ought to carefully define and understand what structure is.
Is it composed of hard traditional elements like reefs,points,breaklines used by fish as travel routes or does it include less permanent elements like bait,thermal lines and so on?What about things that guys like myself write and preach about such as ‘edges’,’comfort zones’,’cover’ vs ‘structure’,’climatic factors’ and on and on.Are these structural elements or something different?I suspect all this is causing unnecessary confusion-particularly to newcomers to the sport.I suspect we need a new definition of what structure is-one that fits an evolving,ever changing fishing scene.A common language if you will-a language we all can understand.Then again,maybe I really am crazy.Lets see where this goes.
First a little historical perspective.The first discussion of structure may have gone something like this;
Caveman to Cavelady:”Honey,stoke up the fire,I reached down behind that same rock in the stream and by golly I grabbed another fish.Woman,that rock rocks!Its one great piece of structure!”
OK,OK maybe that isn’t exactly how it went,but in reality,at least in the sport fishing context,significant advancements beyond that simple approach didn’t occur until fairly recently.In my view it wasn’t until Buck Perry came out with his book on Spoonplugging in 1965 that the concept of ‘structure’was intelligently discussed and considered.In the same era you get Fishing Facts magazine,pioneers like Bill Binkelman,Tony Portincaso and the Lindner brothers,and then of course,Lowrances little ‘Green Box’,the depth finder(fish finder?) that changed the world of ‘structure’forever.At that point ‘structure’became THE buzz word.Man I can remember rowing around on lakes looking for ‘migration routes’.’feeding flats’ and other hyped locations til my arms ached.I recall how stunned I was by the simplicity yet ingenuity involved in the concept of using a lure to find or follow ‘structure’,say a deep weedline-not to mention the fishing success that came with it.I wasn’t alone,thousands and thousands were waiting to take fishing to a higher level.Given the impetus,entire sub industries grew up and sport fishing took off.Really took off!
But,you know what,muskie fishing lagged behind.Muskie fishermen for the most part remained pretty basic and one dimensionable.If you were from the Midwest,you primarily casted-and almost always casted at or around weeds.That was your structure.If you were out east you likely trolled,trolled rivers or reservoirs,and again,’structure’was pretty basic with the focus on current edges,bars,maybe flooded timber in reservoirs,but still basic and traditional.
It wasn’t until the late 70s and early 80s that other than basic traditional structure was discussed or popularized in most muskie circles and even then change came grudgingly and slow.In 1982 my wife and I had an article published in In Fisherman magazine where we talked about fishing walls,deep rock reefs,neck-downs,wind and wind current edges and other alternative types of structure and I can assure you many good muskie fisherman then,and for years thereafter,thought we were nuts.(I know,no comments please,many still do.)
So I submit what constitutes ‘structure’has changed and will continue to change-and perhaps continue to confuse newcomers to our sport unless we correctly define it.So where are we now in terms of a definition.Well I suspect we are kind of in limbo.Some consider it to be only ‘hard’traditional elements such as weeds,points,reefs,or breaklines,while others would consider less permanent features such as wind or baitfish as structure.In other words there really is no clear definition most can agree on.For example look at how I defined it in my book ‘Muskies On The Shield’when it was published in 2001:
“ In the simplest sense,structure is something that ‘holds’fish.Most often,the term refers to a physical feature of the lakes topography-breaklines or drop-offs,islands,inside turns or points.Structure,though,at least in terms of how fish relate to it,can also mean less permanent features of a fish’s environment-thermoclines,current,both natural and ‘unnatural’,mud or algae lines,even schools of forage.Though these kinds of things aren’t exactly ‘structure’in the traditional sense and are somewhat impermanent-a school of ciscoes moves around,while rock reefs pretty much stay put-they do affect fish location,sometimes more so than traditional structure,and in many cases are approached the same way in terms of how you fish them.As we shall see,it pays to expand one’s perception of what ‘structure’is beyond the traditional.”

Good enough?Maybe-if I’d quit after the first sentence.But note,I didn’t,nor does anyone else who tries to define it.In fact,I and others seem to just confuse and complicate it the more we talk or write.For instance,about a year after my book came out I started to talk and write about ‘edges’and ‘environmental factors’.Then a couple years ago I had an article here in EA about those concepts and appeared to use them interchangeably with ‘structure’..I even talked about ‘traditional’ vs’ non-traditional’ edges and yet,at least indirectly,implied these ‘edges’were not structure.
I and others continue to go beyond and write about’comfort zones’.thermal lines,twi-lite zones,chaos and turmoil areas,and so on.Some,particularly in the bass world,draw –or attempt to draw-distinctions between cover and structure.Is it any wonder there’s confusion about what structure is?
More importantly does it matter?I believe it does,for a number of reasons.First in terms of communication and education its tough to teach-or learn-something that isn’t defined.Confusion has to follow. Seems to me a new,more inclusive definition would simplify things and remove this confusion.
Secondly,as new technology comes into use,types of ‘structure’,such as thermal lines,oxygen readings,etc will be more readily available to use and certainly will be discussed and written about,likely causing more confusion absent a clear definition.
Finally and perhaps most importantly,as new frontiers such as the Great Lakes and even just ‘open water’fishing in general becomes more popular and widespread,a framework to talk about new,or lets say impermanent,types of structures will be needed.In my view,a key mindset for success in these new frontiers will be to try identify and then combine as many of these less permanent types of ‘structure ‘ as possible to increase your odds of fish contact..Or put it this way, a key to success out there may well be trying to create non-traditional ‘complexes’ in the middle of nowhere-complexes composed of structural elements such as bait,current,temperature and oxygen comfort zones,favorable weather,light conditions(dawn/dusk/clouds/whatever.),etc.Absent a common language,ie,simplying and clarifying the definition of structure,how will we ever communicate and understand each other as we go forward?
So what am I suggesting?A new all inclusive definition of structure.One that doesn’t cause confusion.One that frees the mind to think about things that attract or affect fish WITHOUT having to characterize where they fit or how to label them..If they affect or attract fish,that’s enough,its ‘structure’and lets move on to how to fish it.
Well whats a good definition?I grabbed Websters New World Dictionary seeking some guidance but none of the definitions of structure there completely fits,although a couple are tantalizingly close to my frame of mind when I suggest putting structures together leads to fishing success.For instance,’to heap together,arrange’;or,’the arrangement or interrelation of all parts of a whole’;or,’something composed of interrelated parts forming an organism or an organization’.
Recently during a seminar in Chicago I proposed a definition that seems simple and all inclusive.How about:”Structure’is anything that fish relate to or are affected by”?Adapt that definition and it seems to me the confusion inherent in talking about,’factors’,’edges’,’zones’,whatever disappears.Let the gurus pontificate all they(I) want,ignore our labels and pithy concepts,if it affects fish or they relate to it,consider it as structure and move on.If it doesn’t,its not likely worth considering in the fishing context anyway.
Folks,as I sit here in mid February watching a blizzard roar across the hills outside I read and reread this wondering,have I said anything worthwhile?Is there anything here worth writing-or more importantly-reading about.?Something profound-or something stupid and unnecessary?Is my sense of all the confusion out there a product of age or senility?I doubt it,I think fishing has advanced so fast and far that we have left old definitions way behind.Even though at this point I’m still obviously struggling to get my arms around this topic,at a minimum,I hope this gets a conversation on ‘structure’going.
Remember:thinking is just being thoughtful.
See you next issue.
Dick

[lambeau]

so in a body of water like Lake of the Woods that has a ton of constantly changing current...wouldn't there be "rivers" flowing into/through/out of the large basins? their courses likely change constantly, but they must exist. these would be a form of structure under this broad definition since they would affect baitfish and predator fish.

if we presume a fair number of large fish are located near large basins during mid-to-late summer, then it would be important to locate structure in or near these basins, yes? and the places where current "rivers" in the basins (non-traditional structure) contact reefs/islands/points (traditional structure) would make for complex (big mama) structure, yes? perhaps this might account for the reasons "good" traditional structure can sometimes be hot and sometimes be cold?

knowing that current is created by more than just the wind, how do i locate open-water current? i see something eariler in this thread about flotsam during late summer and think this would be useful, but is there anything else i should be looking for???

(wow...this is a crazy good thread.)

[Frank Walsh]

Oops, I did not get the memo. Currently it is not a "fish free" zone. But will be within two weeks!!!!!!

[dpear]

Just a warning to the general public.Just agreed with Tri-Esox Shows to 'unretire' for one more talk in Chicago.That talk will likely be on 'Water Movement and Muskies' and cover some of the things discussed here.It will be on Sunday so all the Bear fans are safe but the rest of you need to plan around Sunday and make sure you are out of town.You've been warned.

And,I'd better add I just got topo maps of the area in New Mexico I'll be bowhunting(alone)elk in and the talk,of course,assumes I don't 'tip over' while trying to survive above 10K feet for 10 days or so.

[dpear]

I hear ya Tim,the moon thing is way beyond me.

[glp]

Ya gotta look at the cows, if they are laying down, turn around and go back to sleep!
Of course, it may be kinda hard to find a cow up in your area?
GLP

[dpear]

I've seen Maina n others do it with Tubes or some rubber ducky type deal but,for me,it' a suick.
Fish nutso today,broomhandle would work.

[dpear]

It did but I already melted the * * * thing.

[dpear]

Steve,
The red buoy is now officially off limits for you.Sorry,it's a fish free zone.

[Muskie Junkie]

Steve,
The red buoy is now officially off limits for you.Sorry,it's a fish free zone.

Sounds like some covert operations will be necessary under the stealth of darkness.

[dpear]

Received some great info from a member here on 'rivers within lakes' and he asked about lunar effects and current.Too complicated for me so I fish when I can and focus more on weather BUT said remember,the 'moon' thing is the same,it's all about 'water movement' and keying on it.
http://www.trails.com/about_5178_moo...s-fishing.html

[Tim Kelly]

I read somewhere that the moon related tide on a lake as large as lake superior was negligible, something like an inch or so of measurable change. Hard to imagine it would be noticeable for the fish or the angler?

[dpear]

And while on the subject and to confirm prior claims that the Rumbler was great for biggies,I can state that Frankies new Operation Muskie hand made Rumbler scored a BIG today.Happily I can state I was throwing it however.
It got hurt pretty bad in the process though.