Fishing Depth verses Water Clarity?

General Questions

Fishing Depth verses Water Clarity?

Postby aka anglinarcher » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:47 pm

Larry, and of course all others, I wanted to ask a question regarding fishing depth verses water clarity. As some of you know, I hale from the Intermountain West, and then the Pacific Northwest for the last 20 years or so. Now I am living in the land of warm winters, the “Sportsman Paradise”, Louisiana. :shock:

From the Front Range of Colorado to the Pacific Coast, we consider dirty water as anything we cannot see bottom to 10 feet in. We consider anything muddy that you cannot see a white lure at 5’. LOL :lol:

Now that I am in the South, a different water standard is found, one I am still learning. Much of my area of Louisiana, the Western part, has Gumbo soils that contain a lot of Iron and Magnesium. When the water runs over and through the soil it “blackens” the water. In fact, it is often called black water. A white lure disappears in one to three feet, even though no actual sedimentation is suspended in the water column. So far, except for the lower third of Toledo Bend, I have not seen what I would have previously called “clear”. Nevertheless, the sight feeding predators, like Largemouth and Spotted Bass, and Crappie grow big and plentiful.

After moving here late last fall I found the bass shallow and aggressive. I was impressed with the overall quality of the fish, so I never considered fishing deep. While spending time with my wife, instead of fishing, during the holidays, I got to thinking; just how much does water clarity impact the depth you can successfully catch sight feeding predators?

Larry, when fishing for sight feeders around the world, how much does water clarity come into play for you? If you had water clarity of 3 or 4 feet, but a good drop off to 30 feet from a bank where an old creek channel ran, would you consider working the depths? :?: :?: :?:
I think my bucket list has a hole in the bottom!
User avatar
aka anglinarcher
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: Northern Utah

Re: Fishing Depth verses Water Clarity?

Postby dahlberg » Mon Dec 08, 2014 7:27 am

Hi AK
In my experience fish location and water clarity are often a function of how deep light penetrates to allow aquatic vegetation to grow.
Deep vegetation almost always equals possibility of deep fish.
Water that's stained like root beer or strong coffee often has ph factors that limit some kinds of vegetation, but usually is pretty friendly to anglers.
Water that has a colloidal suspension, like coffee with milk has always been the toughest for me.
In terms of what I'd try and not try always depends on what's working, what's not working, and if and where I see life either with my naked eyeballs or on my electronics.
I know one thing for sure, when ever I've had tough conditions fishing dirty water, if I've found a clearer tributary or edge I've almost always found fish!
good question,
best
L
Larry Dahlberg
The Hunt For Big Fish
User avatar
dahlberg
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5279
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Taylors Falls, Minnesota

Re: Fishing Depth verses Water Clarity?

Postby aka anglinarcher » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:44 pm

Thanks Larry, you answer so completely that you make it hard to keep a thread open for a while. LOL :P But..... I'm going to try. :lol:

I understand that having vegetation, deep or otherwise, is a big advantage. I have found that even Walleye and Lake Trout will associate with deep weeds at times. I also understand that what we consider dark water (low light penetration) is probably not that dark. I have caught (absolutely hated doing it) Lake trout on downriggers at 300' deep, and on colors that theoretically they could not see. I don't care how clear fresh water is, I know that if I was down there is would seem pitch black. I also know that weeds don't grow down there.....so.....I assume...... that it is a source of food that is concentrated at that depth that caused them to put the feed bags on (whitefish).

So, what makes walleye and sometimes Lake Trout and so many other fish concentrate on the deep weeds? Most likely it is the food associated with the weeds that make them a good target to focus on; along with ambush cover. Based on my walleye and Laker fishing, I also assume that any food source or food concentrator works (chunk rock with crayfish and/or baitfish for walleye or a thermocline or current break to concentrate baitfish and the freshwater shrimp and the plankton they feed on).

OK, now back to the variables on my water. During my travels I have never found so much cover! :shock: When they built these Reservoirs, they did not remove the trees. 50 or 60 years ago these "lakes" were thick with oak, Cyprus and southern pine trees. Over time they rotted off just under the surface of the water but mostly remained solid. They are so thick that they went back later and cut boat lanes in the forest (underwater chainsaws), but if you leave the boat lane, you cannot see the trees soon enough to avoid them. :evil: Often they are only 5' apart, sometimes you cannot avoid them even using an electronic motor up front. The option to get through them is to use a SS prop so it does not bend, slow to 5 mph, point your boat, engage the big motor, and go. LOL As you ride up on a tree you kind of roll off it and keep moving. A lot of guys will not take there expensive Bass Boat on these lakes. :lol: The trees were very tall and the tops of the trees are just under the water, even though the water is 30 to 35 feet deep. Obviously cover is not an issue. I cannot find “weeds” in the depths, but there is a moss or slime growing on the trees that I have brought up from the trunks of the trees, I just don’t know how deep it goes.

I have also noticed on my electronics that the baitfish (shad mostly) ball up from the bottom to the top at times. It was fun watching the balls bust open in front of my eyes and see Bass and Crappie suddenly attacking on the surface. Bet you understand why I was sticking shallow. HEHEHE OK, critters located at all depth, but not necessarily feeding.

PH? You got me on that one. I don’t have a PH meter for this. Hmmmm , got to figure out how to measure PH. I don’t think it is tannic stained, but it could be.

I already know that it is necessary to test the deeper water, especially during the cold water period, and I will, but, given the new variables, would YOU see limits to the depth you would try.

Now Larry, you don’t have to answer too quickly. I know some of the other experts have opinions also. LOL I recognize from too many of the threads that there is some real knowledge in your followers.

Thanks all in advance for letting me open my mind and consider some of the factors involved.

Steve
I think my bucket list has a hole in the bottom!
User avatar
aka anglinarcher
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 3:51 pm
Location: Northern Utah


Return to General Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests