2009 Bass Proposal

[XPO]

Here is the proposal I submitted to ODF&W. The warm water biologist in Eugene said he didn't think it was really necessary because we don't have very many big bass in Oregon and protecting the few we have would'nt do that much to improve the fishery. After all, by the time a bass reaches 6-8# they've already contributed to several successful spawns. He missed completely that when fish reach that size, they are living testimony that they are the best of the best and worthy of protection. At the very least they are deserving of respect and value as the treasure they are.

Proposed Rule:

Largemouth & Smallmouth Bass: 5 per day. No more that 3 over 15 inches. Maximum length 19”. All bass over 19” must be released unharmed.

This new regulation does not affect any waters with existing daily retention, maximum size or slot limits. Neither does it affect any waters in which there is no size nor daily retention limits.

Purpose:

To protect the larger the larger brood stock bass, statewide, especially in waters with limited populations, slow growth rate and limited reproduction, such as the coastal lakes in the NW & SW Zones. Retention of the large, trophy bass removes the genetically superior fish and damages or limits future recruitment. Prevents over fishing.

There is no cost to the State.

I would encourage you all to mail letters to the ODF&W Commission and to attend the meetings in your area. Please remember that nothing in this proposal prevents you from catching trophy bass. With good photos, measurements and a good scale, you can put your personal best(s) on your wall. Replicas do not deteriorate ofer time. Please help us protect these beautiful ladies. The fish you kill in September would have had 1000's of quality babies next spring.

[pitchnboy]

i can see your point there to let more of the bigger fish to grow and produce more trophy fish along the line in whatever state.

i think it may be asking for just a tad bit to big of a slot length there.:twocents:

thanks, pitch

[raptorschild]

i can see your point there to let more of the bigger fish to grow and produce more trophy fish along the line in whatever state.

i think it may be asking for just a tad bit to big of a slot length there.:twocents:

thanks, pitch


Technically pitch....in his proposal there is no "slot". In his proposal it says basically you can keep all sized fish under 19'', just limits you to only 3 over 15 inches.

I think it looks good, and I think that Game Bio just wanted to be argumentative. To say that preserving big bass is a wasted effort is just wrong. Who is he to say when a Big Bass has or has not contributed enough to the gene pool. I wonder how much time he's spent quantifying how many more broods of top-end gene's there would be if this would be put into action.

Thats just backwards thinking right there. Sounds like the same indiferent attitude they have with the Brownlee reservoir crappy.

Indifference is always a bad thing in my opinion. Complacency at its finest.

I simply will never understand the need to keep a trophy bass with the replica's you can get with a couple measurments and a few digital pics.

They are the worst eating fish. It just makes no sense...although this has been beaten to death. Not sure why I'm curb stomping a dead horse right now.

[lor]

My :twocents:
I hardly fish for bass, so your proposal if accepted will have no effect on me. However, I'm not a fan of maximum limits on fisheries in which the species is not threaten. These maximums give bragging rights to folks who have a personal stake in a trophy quality fishery, guides, tournament promoters, etc. However they turn what may be someone's trophy fish, one which they can eat or mount become a memory. Personally they may not want a replica mount and should not be forced to have one made if the fishery is healthy. If I understand your paraphrasing of the biologist position, there isn't much to be gained by keeping the larger fish around.
So why seek an upper limit, whats the motivation if it doesn't add much biologically. If the fish has already spawned successful multiple times when it attained that size, then its genetic material has been dispersed.
It has contributed, whats the point after that, the fish has participated in the circle of life.
Has a large bass now taken on some type of spiritual status like the white buffalo or something.

I don't expect my opinion to be popular on this board, however I have always maintained this position on bass. Bass are not in anyway endangered and should be allowed to be harvested at whatever the state deems a minimum size and creel limit to sustain the population.If you want to manage a certain body of water as a trophy fishery, I can accept that. But a statewide upper limit just doesn't make a lot of sense in my opinion.

[drift fishing fool]

I used to fish ABA and club tournaments in this state but in the last few years have somewhat lost interest in bass fishing. I feel like I have a very strong knowledge of the sport and while this proposed rule will have little impact on me, I will question a few of its aspects. Where did you come up with 19" being a magic number? Most slot or maximum/minimum length restrictions have an association with maturation specific to different species. Most of the anglers that are going to be catching 19" plus fish are likely to release them anyway(most big largemouth are caught by anglers targeting them, most bass fishermen practice catch and release). The other aspect is that to create a blanket rule for the entire state like this, there really should be some research done to determine how bass fit into the gamefish management of our state. There are some place in this state where this rule could be great and others it should not be implemented. If you feel this is the direction you would like bass managment to go, good luck. I think a little more research and peer communication may help improve an idea like yours into a rule that may protect or improve a fishery.

[Smj]

I would support that reg. on largmouth, not smallmouth. In most places in oregon we have too few largmouth, and too many smallmouth.

Smj

[exlonestar]

PPO
I like your idea. Moving here from Texas I do not see the same emphasis put on the warm waters as they do down south. I can say from bass fishing around Texas the slot limits do work depending on the goal of the lake. We fished Lake Fork alot. When I left the slot limit 16-24". The limit protects the brood stock. You can keep 5 fish with 1 over 24". Other lakes were different. Most of them had a 12 or 16" min. The large amount of tournaments in Texas have a lot to do with the limits. They also have a program called ShareLunker. Any bass caught over 13lbs from Oct - Apr can be donated if alive to a the program. They are trying to produce and spawn larger bass through the program. As a testiment to the success of catch and release and the program here is an exerpt from the 07' program

"But the surprise of the year came from Lake Alan Henry on April 18, when guide Phillip Pool caught a fish that had been entered into the program each of the two years prior and returned to the lake each time. The three-time entry had been caught by Jimmy McMahon of Big Spring in April 2005 and was caught again by Curtis Norrod of Lubbock in April 2006. The fish is the only one to have been caught and entered into the Budweiser ShareLunker program three times."

This tells me that the fishermen have more to do with preserving the large fish than the actual fish themselves. The almighty smart bass was caught every year for at least 3 yrs. Long live catch and release. But eat em if you want to.
steve:applause:

[skeet]

I think it sounds good until someone catches a new state record sized fish but cannot enter it. If there is no retention than you wil not be able to put it in your livewell even for a minute. I think the idea is a good one but not practical.:twocents:

[Cask of '43]

If I understand this proposal correctly, it would nearly ruin tournament fishing. Making large fish worthless and adding a complicated measuring and culling system would make tournaments a lot less fun.

Also, the salmon anglers would fight this like mad.

[Tar Heel]

I like the idea of C&R and slot limits to create a fishery with fewer dinks and more lunkers. I guess I will say right out I'm not a big fan of tourney fishing, but they should have their needs met too, and if their type of C&R wouldn't qualify, then it wouldn't work on tourney waters. Maybe allow 1 big fish too, in case someone catches a state record. I advocate a slot on the John Day, which has too many dinks, not enough of the bigguns it can sustain, if only left to grow. Our growing season is short, but we do have some good bass fisheries, lg. and small mouth!

[XPO]

Good responses all. Pitch indicated that maybe a 19" max was a little too generous. D-F Fool asked how 19" became the magic number. Depending on how fat the fish is, 19" will get you close to four pounds, a nice fish by any standards, bragging size for many. We wanted folks to be able to take those mini-trophys home. It's after a bass tops 4# that they begin to develop the survival skills that give them the "big bass" attitude that makes them the special challenge we enjoy and want to protect. If we can get ten or twelve spawns out of these gene pools, we all benefit. (If Dave Smith is reading this, a question. How old would an eight pound bass be up here?)

There has been plenty of warm water research over the last 100 years in Oregon and ODF&W has a special unit to manage the total warm water fishery here. Some of the best fisheries in the state already have a 15# maximum limit and three have actual slot limits. Additionally, some of the most fragile bass fisheries in the state, the coastal lakes, have the least protection. ODF&W recommended that I consider the already existing 15# limit for continuity statewide.

Lor addressed folks that want a skin mount. That is true, but among big bass fisherman, those folks would be in the minority. You also asked if large bass have now taken on some type of spiritual status. You would be suprised how many big bass fisherman would answer yes to that question.

To Smj I would say I agree about the smallmouth in some water sheds. In those areas a greater harvest of the mid-sized fish would be benificial. The big ones can and sould be enjoyed repeatedly.

Exlonestar has seen the good that slots & max size limits can do. Thanks for the input.

Skeet: Do some research for us whith the Oregon Bass & Panfish guys. I believe they will accept good photos, measurements and supporting weights from hand held scales. Check it out and get back to us. Thanks

Cask: Because tournament fisherment don't kill their catch and the fish must be released, unharmed some distance from the weigh-in point, I would think that you folks could get a waiver for the tournament.

I'll let you all know more on how to get involved as this process goes along.

[Dave Smith]

I would disagree with the proposal, for what it's worth, although I like the intentions!! I also agree that slot limits don't work- it has been proven over and over and modern management is phasing out slot limits all over the country. Maximum size retention has had some serious problems, too.

[walt1er]

"are living testimony that they are the best of the best and worthy of protection"

Not necessarily. These bass "are living testimony" that they could survive the conditions of the last few years (their life span), but they have not shown that they have the genetic makeup to be the "best" of anything in their environment. How are big bass "best" for the ecosystem in which they live? Any studies to support the answer?

[Dave Smith]

"are living testimony that they are the best of the best and worthy of protection"

Not necessarily. These bass "are living testimony" that they could survive the conditions of the last few years (their life span), but they have not shown that they have the genetic makeup to be the "best" of anything in their environment. How are big bass "best" for the ecosystem in which they live? Any studies to support the answer?

OK, I gotta know: How does an organism get the knod of approval at being "the best in their environment"?? Every living thing that is alive today passes the only test that mattered, and it was a long, LONG time ago. You either pass or fail, there is not much in between. A BASS IS MERELY A GENE'S WAY OF COPYING ITSELF. Like all organisms, they have an environment in which they are best suited.

[walt1er]

“OK, I gotta know: How does an organism get the knod of approval at being "the best in their environment"??”

That was my point; we really don’t know if these big bass are best for their ecosystem. We know that native Northern Pikeminnows survive very well in our altered ecosystems, but we don’t declare the biggest of them “Best and deserving of protection.” We also know that non-native bluegill, perch, and crappie also survive well, but we don’t declare the biggest of them “Best and deserving of protection.” Just what is the size and number of bluegill, perch, and crappie that is best for our ecosystems? I sure don’t know, and I doubt anyone does.

“Every living thing that is alive today passes the only test that mattered… You either pass or fail, there is not much in between.” There’s plenty in between. Some living things today got quite an assist in their survival, and some clearly were impeded in their survival, by the actions humans took, especially in the last couple hundred years. It has not been purely survival of the fittest.

Creating big bass should not be a management goal, just like creating big steelhead, salmon, or deer shouldn’t be. Managing our resources in a way that promotes sustainability should be the goal. The best research I’ve read indicates that managing for variety is more successful long-term than managing to promote a specific trait. If big bass, or salmon, or steelhead, or deer are a byproduct of sustainability, they get my “nod of approval.”

[cavdad45]

I am against any statewide ruling concerning bass and see it as a lazy approach by ODFW to manage our waters. Each body of water is unique and should be managed with an eye toward the sustainable needs of that particular body of water,

What might be a good rule for Hagg Lake will not necessarily be a good rule for Selmac Lake or TenMile or the Willamette River. Statewide rules for limits and sizes is no better than using a Ouija board to manage bass.

The other failure in that proposal is lumping largemouth bass and smallmouth bass together when making rules. They are not the same and a size limit that is equal will always force out the bigger largemouth in favor of the more prolific smallmouth. Case in point: Tualatin River bass. Just ten years ago the catch was 97% largemouth and now its 85% smallmouth (stunted smallmouth mostly) and 15% largemouth.

Instead of ODFW taking our license fees and doing nothing but stupid regulating they need to be charged with managing the bass resource in our state. Now they rob bass anglers to pay for trout hatcheries to feed our bass.

[Two Fister]

Now they rob bass anglers to pay for trout hatcheries to feed our bass.

:lurk: