Keeping large Bass instead of releasing. Does it effect the fishery?

[GraphiteZen]

I feel that it does, and want to get a thread going to look into this further. One argument is that if you start taking the largest fish out then they are no longer there to keep in check the fish that have just become sexually mature or almost mature, and over a short amount of time they will be at very high numbers. At that point more larger fish have a harder time making it to the threshold where they convert to eating other fish as opposed to other sources of food, because the nutrients are being depleted by the high numbers of smaller fish. I'm curious about what others think of this.

[otterduck1]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

I feel that it does, and want to get a thread going to look into this further. One argument is that if you start taking the largest fish out then they are no longer there to keep in check the fish that have just become sexually mature or almost mature, and over a short amount of time they will be at very high numbers. At that point more larger fish have a harder time making it to the threshold where they convert to eating other fish as opposed to other sources of food, because the nutrients are being depleted by the high numbers of smaller fish. I'm curious about what others think of this.

That's a pretty good way of putting it without going into too much more detail. When it comes to bass and another good example but somewhat different one is kokanee. It's all about how much energy is in the system and how it gets partitioned. The challenge for management is the goal for people to catch a lot of fish (and eat some) or occaisonally catch a fish that is larger? Or try something in-between. The latter is why I eat bass.

[flippinbaits]

i had my reasons and a fellow ifisher explained to me some more. But the big fish have the good genes. So keep them in the water, along with those big fish genes.

[Dave Smith]

Yes, it affects the fishery- to what degree depends on how many are kept and how many there are to begin with. Like otterduck1 has pointed out, this could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the goal of the fishery is. Personally, I like a fishery that has very few fish, but some very large fish with good genetics and lot's of food. This makes for a tough fishery but very rewarding at times. Look, though at the river systems and tenmile lakes for example- VERY popular because of the numbers of fish, but very little chance of catching a "trophy" sized fish.
I think it's great to have both and we do. Each body of water can produce a finite amount of bio mass, so the question is, what portion of that will be bass and, of the total (weight) of bass, will it be a large amount of fish that weigh very little or a small amount of fish that each weigh alot?
Still, there is almost no question that it is never good to keep and kill a large female bass no matter what the goal is unless it is to rid the system of bass.
Dave

[DJD]

Originally Posted by Dave Smith

Yes, it affects the fishery- to what degree depends on how many are kept and how many there are to begin with. Like otterduck1 has pointed out, this could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what the goal of the fishery is. Personally, I like a fishery that has very few fish, but some very large fish with good genetics and lot's of food. This makes for a tough fishery but very rewarding at times. Look, though at the river systems and tenmile lakes for example- VERY popular because of the numbers of fish, but very little chance of catching a "trophy" sized fish.
I think it's great to have both and we do. Each body of water can produce a finite amount of bio mass, so the question is, what portion of that will be bass and, of the total (weight) of bass, will it be a large amount of fish that weigh very little or a small amount of fish that each weigh alot?
Still, there is almost no question that it is never good to keep and kill a large female bass no matter what the goal is unless it is to rid the system of bass.
Dave

Case in point; Tenmile lakes. People have removed so many larger fish that the STATE has actually restricted the size of fish that may be taken to less than 15 inches. It will take a while for that fishery to become "balanced" again. On the other side of the coin; Fern Ridge. I may be alone in my thinking, but I sometimes wonder if there are TOO MANY large fish (bass) in the lake. This MIGHT explain the dissappearence of the large numbers of crappie in the lake.It would take years of costly research to find out, but I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie! Having too many large fish in a lake is NOT the worst problem to have! The balance of numbers and larger fish together in the same lake is seemingly very difficult to achieve and it is my opinion that Man's influence is usually more harmful than helpful! All that being said, releasing most or all of your 4+ lb bass seems to be the most effective way to keep a fishery going! Just my 2 cents worth. DJD

[ExBassGuide]

I’m with DJD and Dave on this one. Think about hunting, every one is after the biggest buck and after taking big bucks year after your the dear are no longer of a good quality. SELECTIVE HARVEST, keep the small ones if you must kill a bass that will have far less impact than removing the genetic quality of a body of water. It is MUCH easier for the population to replace four 2 pound bass taken from a lake than it I would be to replace one 8 pound bass. less than 1% of all bass make it to 6 pounds. I do the same thing when crappie fishing I keep the mid sized and smallish fish and toss back the bigger crappie I catch. Some people think That is crazy but if every one did that the lake would have some very good quality fish.
Is it that you really need the food? or you just want to show it off, think about it. You would be better off going to Safeway and buying food there it would be much cheaper. If bass fishermen did as the salmon and trout fishermen do - keep every thing they can with in the law. We would have almost no bass to fish for. Thank god for C&R and my hat is off to every single one out there that does C&R only. I do not eat bass so that others can enjoy the same fish I did and on and on and on. 90% of all the bass you catch have been caught before and placed back into the water by some one before you.

[Damon]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

I feel that it does, and want to get a thread going to look into this further. One argument is that if you start taking the largest fish out then they are no longer there to keep in check the fish that have just become sexually mature or almost mature, and over a short amount of time they will be at very high numbers. At that point more larger fish have a harder time making it to the threshold where they convert to eating other fish as opposed to other sources of food, because the nutrients are being depleted by the high numbers of smaller fish. I'm curious about what others think of this.

[Damon]

I think that this could be a very argueable question. Personally, I think that there are SO MANY factors that could be considered. I.E. Depth, location (of the lake, weather, altitude, blah blah). But no matter where you are talking, when it comes to bass... the BIG ones provide so many eggs, and are so protective of their nests, they are VITAL to the health of a bass fishery no matter what lake.
In response to the crappie on Tenmile. I love that lake and I remember ten years ago that lake had some "keeper" size crappie for a year or two. Then it went to a bunch of dinks, and now... Crappie are a bit of an obsession for me, when it comes to Tenmile, it's simply not deep enough to support a long term healthy population. Even though they spawn fairly shallow, it seems like they prefer to suspend in water at least 20+ feet. I also think this is why Fern Ridge's crappie are so inconsistent. But again, it is argueable. Why is Prineville full of Dinky crappie and it is a deep lake!

[MolaJoe]

First, let me say Hi. I've posted before on the other boards here, but I think it's my first on the warm water. After just buying a new G3 bass boat, I'm sure I'll be posting here more and seeing alot of you out on the water.

As for keeping big bass.............I'm originally from Southern California and being lucky enough to have fished that great fishery back in the 70's and 80's, I saw first hand what taking big fish will do to a lake. I spent alot of time on Casitas and the main lake at Castaic, but it's the Afterbay at Castaic that kicked butt for big fish through the early 80's. I fished with some hardcore guys like Butch Brown and learned alot watching them. I also seen more ten pound plus bass caught and kept out of that fishery than you can believe. Including the last bass I killed (back in 1980) which was the first ten pound plus fish I caught and told myself I would mount if I ever broke that mark. I heard that fishery is now making a comeback, but it went from dozens of hogs to 17lbs being caught, to being hard pressed to get one over 6 lbs in a matter of 4 or 5 years.

All lakes do go through cycles on the big fish, but no way can one expect trophy fish to last when guys are walking away with the very fish that we need to spawn to sustain a trophy fishery. Slot limits do work, and there are times lakes get over-run with runts. I hate to see any bass killed, but it does help a lake to thin out a population of smaller fish if they get out of hand.

As for me, it's been 28 years since I killed my last bass, and unless we are talking state record (and maybe it still may go back), that's more than likely my last bass killed. No, I won't blast someone for keeping a fish from time to time.......as long as it's complying with the law on that body of water. Some cases a guy has to justify the expense of fishing with bringing something home for the family. To me, that's understandable. Education and forums like this hopefully will discourage someone from taking a trophy fish home for the table, and instead opting for a smaller fish to eat.

One thing for sure though, if you fish with me in my boat, all bass go back. Oh, will be at Hagg tomorrow, maybe see a few of you guys there and post a report when I get back.

[Dave Smith]

Welcome, MolaJoe- good luck at Hagg- would love to hear some Butch Brown stories or any pics of fish caught in the lagoon back in the day.
Dave

[catfishman89]

Originally Posted by Damon

I think that this could be a very argueable question. Personally, I think that there are SO MANY factors that could be considered. I.E. Depth, location (of the lake, weather, altitude, blah blah). But no matter where you are talking, when it comes to bass... the BIG ones provide so many eggs, and are so protective of their nests, they are VITAL to the health of a bass fishery no matter what lake.
In response to the crappie on Tenmile. I love that lake and I remember ten years ago that lake had some "keeper" size crappie for a year or two. Then it went to a bunch of dinks, and now... Crappie are a bit of an obsession for me, when it comes to Tenmile, it's simply not deep enough to support a long term healthy population. Even though they spawn fairly shallow, it seems like they prefer to suspend in water at least 20+ feet. I also think this is why Fern Ridge's crappie are so inconsistent. But again, it is argueable. Why is Prineville full of Dinky crappie and it is a deep lake!

Prineville nearly dries up alot and kills alot of the fish and they have to reproduce and create millions of tiny crappie.

[Mongo74]

Keeping large fish has a big impact on the fishery. Too bad that most catch and keep guys don't understand that or care.

[arkansasbasser]

Originally Posted by ExBassGuide

I’m with DJD and Dave on this one. Think about hunting, every one is after the biggest buck and after taking big bucks year after your the dear are no longer of a good quality. SELECTIVE HARVEST, keep the small ones if you must kill a bass that will have far less impact than removing the genetic quality of a body of water. It is MUCH easier for the population to replace four 2 pound bass taken from a lake than it I would be to replace one 8 pound bass. less than 1% of all bass make it to 6 pounds. I do the same thing when crappie fishing I keep the mid sized and smallish fish and toss back the bigger crappie I catch. Some people think That is crazy but if every one did that the lake would have some very good quality fish.
Is it that you really need the food? or you just want to show it off, think about it. You would be better off going to Safeway and buying food there it would be much cheaper. If bass fishermen did as the salmon and trout fishermen do - keep every thing they can with in the law. We would have almost no bass to fish for. Thank god for C&R and my hat is off to every single one out there that does C&R only. I do not eat bass so that others can enjoy the same fish I did and on and on and on. 90% of all the bass you catch have been caught before and placed back into the water by some one before you.

"90% of all the bass you catch have been caught before and placed back into the water by some one before you." Where do you come up with a number like that? I don't beleive that and there's nothing to back up a statement like that. That may be your personal opinion but it's certainly not fact. It may be closer to being true on heavy fished lakes like Hagg or Silver Lake. You catch so many freakin fish that if we all were as good as you, that would probably be a true statement.
I don't eat largemouth from around here because I do believe it is a limited resource in the Pac N.W. due to short growing seasons. However, this is ideal habitat for smallmouth up here and I believe that if everyone who caught a limit ate them, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on this resource.

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

I feel that it does, and want to get a thread going to look into this further. One argument is that if you start taking the largest fish out then they are no longer there to keep in check the fish that have just become sexually mature or almost mature, and over a short amount of time they will be at very high numbers. At that point more larger fish have a harder time making it to the threshold where they convert to eating other fish as opposed to other sources of food, because the nutrients are being depleted by the high numbers of smaller fish. I'm curious about what others think of this.

No offense but this has been hashed and reshashed. Just do a search. All this will generate is Arm chair biology. I'm not sure what your point is. To educate people to C & R? the people that have a clue usually c and R. the people that fish with worms....probably won't.

Of course keeping big bass will negatively impact a fishery. A few hear and there...you won't notice the difference.

Its kinda like...if a tree falls in the woods and nobody see's it....Did it really fall?

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by arkansasbasser

" However, this is ideal habitat for smallmouth up here and I believe that if everyone who caught a limit ate them, it would have a minimal impact, if any, on this resource.

Again....this is arm chair biology, but I agree. I really think people need to start taking some limits of bass out of the rivers. It will start to thin the numbers and probably increas the size.

[GraphiteZen]

Originally Posted by raptorschild

No offense but this has been hashed and reshashed. Just do a search. All this will generate is Arm chair biology. I'm not sure what your point is. To educate people to C & R? the people that have a clue usually c and R. the people that fish with worms....probably won't.

Of course keeping big bass will negatively impact a fishery. A few hear and there...you won't notice the difference.

Its kinda like...if a tree falls in the woods and nobody see's it....Did it really fall?

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was offering my opinion within a thread that also asked for various other opinions on the subject, in an attempt to provide a forum which might simply allow a little casual conversation and entertainment, maybe a little information.

You claim that this thread will produce only "armchair biology" then you provide just that but who cares. What I provided was also "armchair biology". 75% of the people here would only be able to provide what would then be considered "armchair biology" if their opinions were to be stacked against the education of an actual scientist.

When you speculated that my intent was to educate people about C&R, you were right. I tried to do this by starting a debate that would run at about the same level of most people who frequent this site and who would contribute, myself hoping for a few points to be made that various other people may not have considered. I didn't think anyone would find it to be so offensive.

Also, keep in mind this thread is about keeping "large" bass, not your limit of average bass, "will it effect the fishery?".

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was offering my opinion within a thread that also asked for various other opinions on the subject, in an attempt to provide a forum which might simply allow a little casual conversation and entertainment, maybe a little information.

You claim that this thread will produce only "armchair biology" then you provide just that but who cares. What I provided was also "armchair biology". 75% of the people here would only be able to provide what would then be considered "armchair biology" if their opinions were to be stacked against the education of an actual scientist.

When you speculated that my intent was to educate people about C&R, you were right. I tried to do this by starting a debate that would run at about the same level of most people who frequent this site and who would contribute, myself hoping for a few points to be made that various other people may not have considered. I didn't think anyone would find it to be so offensive.

Also, keep in mind this thread is about keeping "large" bass, not your limit of average bass, "will it effect the fishery?".

Easy there mr. Defensive. your post just kinda looks inflamatory, and appears you are stirring the pot. Maybe not done intentionally, but you are inviting people to stir the pot further.

I think you and I both know that the people that post here are educated in regard to releasing big bass.

C&R is rampant among real bass fisherman already.....Therefore your cause is either pot stirring or redundancy. Either way....have at it.

If you really want to find out if Killing big bass negatively impacts a fishery...click here. http://charliebrownau.vox.com/librar...-pictures.html

Cheers.

[GraphiteZen]

Well..... you posted on a thread that had been vacant for a month and essentially tried to restructure, and at the same time, attack the intentions of the original poster. All along obviously intending to insinuate that the original post as a whole and the following replies were worthless and amounted to nothing more than "armchair science".

Sooo... I intend to begin a dialog about fishery management, you drop in 30 days after the thread has ended (with the exception of arkansawsbasser's post) and flame it. You claim that I am "stirring the pot" and that my REPLY to your attack is "inflammatory".

Why are you here?

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=200569

[GraphiteZen]

Nice link by the way. I love the main image of the sight, one you seemed to feel was relevant to the topic, and supposedly proved this to be a worthless discussion:

[Bassinator]

Its a simple answer.. Dont keep the big ones.. They don't even taste that good either..

[Smalma]

I think when it comes to fisheries like Pacific Northwest bass fisheries it might be better to consider concepts like selective harvest rather than total CnR release.

Perhaps it might be best to start with a couple basic biological factors here in our waters.

1) There is a limited amount of bass biomass that our lakes can support. That biomass is considerably less than some of the big time waters to the south.

2) Our bass are relatively slow growing. For example in Western Washington on the average it takes 5 years to grow a 12 inch bass. On exceptional waters it still takes 3 years to grow a 12 inch fish.

3) our bass can be long lived with some fish being teenagers.

4) Annual successful reproduction or recruitment is rarely a problem (an exception might be reservoirs with rapidly flucating water levels).

In situation such as ours if one wants to see more nice fish regulations such as slot limits (whether forced by regulation or anglers consceince harvest choice) tends to be a logical approach. The idea is to thin the smaller crop of bass to encourage conversion of more of the forage into growth of a smaller number of fish to facilate a more rapid growth of the remaining fish.

I have noticed that once our bass reach that 12/14 inch range their growth sense to dramatically increase (better able to utilize large forage items?) If most of our bass are going to live 8 to 12 years we can see much better quality of fish if the population is manipulated so that more of their life is spend above the size at which we see good growth rates- get them to that 1# range as quickly as possible.

Of course a key is that once the fish reach a desirable size it is important to keep them in the fisheries thus many folks are pro CnR of most bass (especially those over 1#).

Something to consider on those very large/exceptional fish i(something that is 10 or more years old) s that they are essentially near the end of their life. It probably does not do much damage to the population to remove such fish. One often hears that we need those fish for their genetics. While there is something to such an arguement remember that a 12 year old fish has likely spawn 8 or so times as certainly contributed its genetic material to the population a number of times.

From a management prespecitive if the goal is to have most of the potential bass biomass "stockpiled" in a desirable size range selectively harvesting the smaller fish and practicing CnR with those 5 to 10 year old fish makes a lot of sense and removing the older fish probably doesn't have alot of adverse impacts. Though I must say that I release those larger/"trophy" fish as well with the hope that another angler might enjoy the fish before it dies.

One anglers thoughts!

Tight lines
Curt

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

Nice link by the way. I love the main image of the sight, one you seemed to feel was relevant to the topic, and supposedly proved this to be a worthless discussion:

My bad dude....I didnt see that the thread was open a month. Your right...I'm wrong.....your smart, I'm dumb.....your good looking, me not so much.....

Anyway..like Dave Smith said....Unless you want to eradicate bass....taking the big-uns is never EVER productive. Doesnt take a whole lot more than common sense to figure that out.

Taking some small or medium sized ones.....Thats another thread altogether, of which you didnt ask about in the original post.

[retaliate]

Originally Posted by Bassinator

Its a simple answer.. Dont keep the big ones.. They don't even taste that good either..

They make good Catfish Bait tho....just kidding.

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by retaliate

They make good Catfish Bait tho....just kidding.

no your not......hehe.....its all good though. In the area's you fish for cats, a few bass need to get thinned.

[arkansasbasser]

Something else that I haven't heard anyone mention on this thread is the natural life cycle of a lake. A new lake continues to get better and better up until about 10 years then begins to decline until it bottoms out at around 20 years old. They will still produce fish, just not the numbers as before. Lakes can be rejuvenated by draw downs and fertilization. But a lot of folks would like to blame it on taking the bass when it is instead inevitable and natural. This doesn't apply to rivers, which are constanty being fed by many sources along it's path.

[QH's Paw]

Kinda funny how people seem to go back to the big fish genes view so often. It is the same reasoning why people try to say shoot small buck and spike bulls. There is a big hole in that argument......fish, animals and yes man have the same genes through out there life. Being a big fish doesn't prove the fish has superior genes necessarily as much as it proves the fish has superior intelligence and survival skills(luck doesn't hurt either). That big bass was a fry at some time, and may have been kept by a fisherman along the way if they believed smaller fish are lesser genetically.
IMHO I really believe it is more along the lines of Dave and Smalma's statement, with regard to total biomass for a given environment.
Do you want 200# per lake acre of 5# fish or 2# fish?
I think a mix of size class is a more healthy choice and grows the future "big" fish in the process.
Just for the record ....I am pro C&R. I release nearly all fish regardless of size. When I keep fish I only keep what I can eat within a reasonable period of time. I like my fish fresh not frozen.

[DJD]

[quote Being a big fish doesn't prove the fish has superior genes necessarily as much as it proves the fish has superior intelligence and survival skills./quote] Wouldnt you want to try to breed these traits into your favorite fish?

[BassinFever]

Originally Posted by DJD

[quote Being a big fish doesn't prove the fish has superior genes necessarily as much as it proves the fish has superior intelligence and survival skills./quote] Wouldnt you want to try to breed these traits into your favorite fish?

Not to mention, they lay a (LOT) more eggs!!!!! Also, they may spawn to as many as two or three males in different nests!

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by BassinFever

Not to mention, they lay a (LOT) more eggs!!!!! Also, they may spawn to as many as two or three males in different nests!

Those dirty girls!

[basshunter]

All you have to do is look at the WDFW planting program. Lakes throughout the state are planted with smushy.. disgusting.. pellet fed trout because that ilk of fisherman obviously doesnt practice C&R...although I'm glad the state plants trout. Bass love to eat them!Kudos to all of you that do practice C&R. Like many of you, I'm proud to say I have never kept a bass for the table. If I did..it would be a very expensive meal per pound. I could eat lobster and halibut for cheaper.

Regards

[arkansasbasser]

Originally Posted by basshunter

Kudos to all of you that do practice C&R. Like many of you, I'm proud to say I have never kept a bass for the table. If I did..it would be a very expensive meal per pound. I could eat lobster and halibut for cheaper.

Regards

Eating them makes it less expensive to go. At least you get a meal for your money. I don't eat largemouth but do keep the smallmouth from the Upper CR for the table, and I think they taste great!

[OutdoorBum]

Originally Posted by arkansasbasser

Eating them makes it less expensive to go. At least you get a meal for your money. I don't eat largemouth but do keep the smallmouth from the Upper CR for the table, and I think they taste great!

A good meal of bass can offset the cost a bit

[QH's Paw]

Originally Posted by BassinFever

Not to mention, they lay a (LOT) more eggs!!!!! Also, they may spawn to as many as two or three males in different nests!

Originally Posted by DJD

[quote Being a big fish doesn't prove the fish has superior genes necessarily as much as it proves the fish has superior intelligence and survival skills./quote] Wouldnt you want to try to breed these traits into your favorite fish?

I don't disagree with what you're saying. The point of my statement was all fish start out small. Can't make the statement more simple. If you kill fish because they are small, with the idea they are inferior from a genetic standpoint, you will kill some of the future big fish and there individual genes(superior genetics or not). Simply put....Big elk,big deer and yes big fish do not start their life big.
Again, I will add my disclaimer ..."I am pro C&R. I release nearly all fish regardless of size. When I keep fish I only keep what I can eat within a reasonable period of time. I like my fish fresh not frozen."

[Queeg]

In Oregon, they are a non-native invasive species.

[MXRacer105]

Originally Posted by Queeg

In Oregon, they are a non-native invasive species.

So are you.....

[OutdoorBum]

Originally Posted by MXRacer105

So are you.....

Then we all are.....

[Bassinator]

OMG stop this please!

[Chrome Bumper]

I thought Castiac had big fish in the eighty's due to the truck loads of planter trout they fed on and being a brood stock from Florida.

[GraphiteZen]

Until.... People started keeping 10 or 15 pound fish and the population plummeted...

[raptorschild]

Originally Posted by Queeg

In Oregon, they are a non-native invasive species.

Yep, and it will be THE fishery in no time. I love STS as much as the next guy...nothing like hawling in a nice chrome steelie, but sooner or later the Bass haters will figure out that bass are here to stay, and killing the bigguns won't put another salmon or steelhead on their or my rod.

[JustCallMeDave]

I would like to remind those folks who seem to find great joy in posting "KILL THEM ALL!" in these threads that it falls squarely in the realm of "Inflammatory". Please, show restraint.

Thanks.

[Dave Smith]

This has nothing to do with the subject, but have you guys looked at chrome bumber's avatar? I almost spit my cereal out a second ago- he he.

[ExBassGuide]

Originally Posted by MXRacer105

So are you.....

[arkansasbasser]

Originally Posted by GraphiteZen

Until.... People started keeping 10 or 15 pound fish and the population plummeted...

The population, in my opinion, most likely plummeted due to the age of the lake more than anything. It was impounded in 1973. Most lakes have a natural cyle of being great for the first 10 years, then declining for the next 10. This lake is 35 years old. Unless they are doing something to rejuvinate it, it will never again be the lake it was. Rejuvination is accomplished by a severe draw down and/or fertilization. The lake will continue to produce some real hawgs but will probably never again return to it's former glory, due to this natural and inevitable cycle.

[retaliate]

Originally Posted by arkansasbasser

The population, in my opinion, most likely plummeted due to the age of the lake more than anything. It was impounded in 1973. Most lakes have a natural cyle of being great for the first 10 years, then declining for the next 10. This lake is 35 years old. Unless they are doing something to rejuvinate it, it will never again be the lake it was. Rejuvination is accomplished by a severe draw down and/or fertilization. The lake will continue to produce some real hawgs but will probably never again return to it's former glory, due to this natural and inevitable cycle.

I don't know about that, I have to agree with Zen on this one, I saw the John Day river go from 100+ smallies a day easily, to your lucky to get a dozen, & smaller ave. size also, cause so many people were keeping their 5 fish limit, bringing their whole family, that adds up quick.

[ExBassGuide]

Originally Posted by arkansasbasser

The population, in my opinion, most likely plummeted due to the age of the lake more than anything. It was impounded in 1973. Most lakes have a natural cyle of being great for the first 10 years, then declining for the next 10. This lake is 35 years old. Unless they are doing something to rejuvinate it, it will never again be the lake it was. Rejuvination is accomplished by a severe draw down and/or fertilization. The lake will continue to produce some real hawgs but will probably never again return to it's former glory, due to this natural and inevitable cycle.

That would be the case IF the bass fed from what was in the lake normaly. It is all about the food supply.
But the bass in that lake scarf on stocked trout and the age of the lake has 0 to do with that. The state keeps the bass in that lake well fed. If you take out that many quality fish (15 pound bass) it will change the quality of the lake for years if not decades. The state should have placed a limit of no bass over 5 pounds could be retained. The big fish would still be there! no matter what age the lake is.
Just my .

[Queeg]

Originally Posted by MXRacer105

So are you.....

good one!

I can accept non-native, but I'm not invasive. I was born here and I've stayed here.

I think perhaps humans have lived here long enough that we are as native as any animal, really.

I suppose my point is that you really aren't going to impact the fishery in the long run. They're a very durable species.

[retaliate]

If you look in the Oregon synopsis you'll see there are more non-native species than native, even more if you count hatchery raised fish, Bass have their place, probably not in Crane Prarrie res, but they have a foothold, so get used to it, to me fishing is fishing, I catch Tuna, as well as Crappie, I like to eat what I catch, so Bass is not my main target, Smallies fight good tho, so bring them on, I've ate a few Bass, sometimes their ok, sometimes not, C&R Bass for me, Crappie always taste good, C&R the little ones, big ones go in the basket.

[MXRacer105]

Originally Posted by Queeg

good one!

I can accept non-native, but I'm not invasive. I was born here and I've stayed here.

I think perhaps humans have lived here long enough that we are as native as any animal, really.

I suppose my point is that you really aren't going to impact the fishery in the long run. They're a very durable species.

You are invasive to the Bass and Panfish page when you come over and make comments like that. I see you point, but you could have simply posted that last comment instead of your brilliant first post. Nobody on ifish is responsible for bringing bass to Oregon waters. In fact OFW is, way back in the 50's if I am not mistaken. They are here to stay.

Keeping large bass does impact a fishery, their is no doubt about it. Why do you think all the large bass fishing organizations preach about catch and release. Maybe when some of you STS guys learn that you will see an improvement in your fisheries???

[OutdoorBum]

There are alot of STS people that C&R, and it seems awfully divisive and ignorant to imply that lack of C&R is the reason STS fisheries are struggling. Not to mention "coming over to the bass and panfish" page is the right of every ifisher. I mean, come on...we're all into fishing here and these elitist attitudes really don't help breed unity amongst sportsmen/sportswomen. Educating about the effect of large fish and C&R in a fishery is great, but too many people get slammed for keeping ANYTHING on this forum.

[DJD]

Originally Posted by ExBassGuide

That would be the case IF the bass fed from what was in the lake normaly. It is all about the food supply.
But the bass in that lake scarf on stocked trout and the age of the lake has 0 to do with that. The state keeps the bass in that lake well fed. If you take out that many quality fish (15 pound bass) it will change the quality of the lake for years if not decades. The state should have placed a limit of no bass over 5 pounds could be retained. The big fish would still be there! no matter what age the lake is.
Just my .

Have to agree with Roger on this one; there is a price to pay when you remove those big brooders. Same thing happened to my honey hole I call "the crossing". Word got out at the local pub about the big fish being caught there, several guys came out and kept their big fish and it took several years to see any big fish in that slough. If that slough wasnt restocked by high river levels every winter, it would have taken even longer to recover. Remember it takes over ten years in this state to produce a bass over 6 lbs and the odds are long against a bass living that long!

[Queeg]

Originally Posted by MXRacer105

You are invasive to the Bass and Panfish page when you come over and make comments like that.

You know, I fish for bass. I obey the rules and I kill them for crab bait. If having an opinion different from yours is the definition of "invasive" well ...

[GraphiteZen]

There is also something we like to call "ethics".

[DJD]

{quote] Nobody on ifish is responsible for bringing bass to Oregon waters. In fact OFW is, way back in the 50's if I am not mistaken. [quote] Bass were introduced to the Willamette basin in the 1880's or 90's and coexisted with the other species for many, many years with out a lot of problems. I tend to believe that poor management and damming the rivers has had more detrimental consequences than anything else as far as salmon/steelhead are concerned. Hummm, maybe I better shut up before I get myself in trouble.......

[arkansasbasser]

"That would be the case IF the bass fed from what was in the lake normaly. It is all about the food supply.
But the bass in that lake scarf on stocked trout and the age of the lake has 0 to do with that. The state keeps the bass in that lake well fed. If you take out that many quality fish (15 pound bass) it will change the quality of the lake for years if not decades. The state should have placed a limit of no bass over 5 pounds could be retained. The big fish would still be there! no matter what age the lake is."


I did not know that it was a stocked lake. I am sure that you are correct in what you say then. I watched a new lake in Arkansas with a slot limit go from soso to great and then back to soso in a 20 year span. But it was not stocked. It also produced some monster bass because of the slot limit.
I also witnessed another lake make a great comeback when the lake was drawn down for 2 years.
I did not come up with the 20 year productivity cycle that I refer to. If you do some research you will see that it is a natural occurance, on lakes that are not fed trout sticks anyway. However, there is no doubt in my mind that largemouth here in the Pacific Northwest should be released to keep the numbers up. And therefore the "fun" level up. Isn't that why we all do this thing?

[arkansasbasser]

Originally Posted by retaliate

I don't know about that, I have to agree with Zen on this one, I saw the John Day river go from 100+ smallies a day easily, to your lucky to get a dozen, & smaller ave. size also, cause so many people were keeping their 5 fish limit, bringing their whole family, that adds up quick.

I have never fished that river but since I moved here in 1996 I have heard people talk about catching 100+ per day there. And I still hear people telling me that, even today. The river guide services advertise 100+, even today. It's been my experiance that rivers hold up very well to pressure because they are fed from so many different sources, especially if they are allowed to flood in their natural flood plain every year. Look at the Mississippi. It receives intense pressure all along it's route but keeps producing like crazy. The Ouachita river (my stomping grounds) in Arkansas and Louisania gets intense bass fishing pressure and just seems to get better every year. I'm not saying that you can't overfish a resource. But I am saying that a decline in numbers isn't always because of fishermen.

[Herm]

all biology theory aside...

I really see no reason at all to keep a big large mouth or small mouth. If you want to brag, take a pic. if you want to mount it, take a pic. If you really want to eat a big nasty fish that wont taste good at all, then you are starving? Im really not trying to pass judgement; I just have a really hard time justifying keeping large fish, this includes trout as well. And its not because I dont like the fish, I love to eat small mouth and largemouth as well, but we all know that they are not half as good when they are 5-10 years old...this goes for trout as well; I just cringe when I see nice 6lbers get bonked at wickiup.

When I was younger I used to keep most fish I caugh, even back then, I knew in the back of my mind that its not responsible to keep everything regardless of size.

Is showing off a stringer of fish really worth hurting a population? I mean, is it really that important to impress people you do not know and will probably never see again? Maybe Im off track here, but thats the only reason I can see for keeping a giant bass or trout. Maybe Im wrong....

[arkansasbasser]

Originally Posted by Herm

all biology theory aside...

I really see no reason at all to keep a big large mouth or small mouth. If you want to brag, take a pic. if you want to mount it, take a pic. If you really want to eat a big nasty fish that wont taste good at all, then you are starving? Im really not trying to pass judgement; I just have a really hard time justifying keeping large fish, this includes trout as well. And its not because I dont like the fish, I love to eat small mouth and largemouth as well, but we all know that they are not half as good when they are 5-10 years old...this goes for trout as well; I just cringe when I see nice 6lbers get bonked at wickiup.

When I was younger I used to keep most fish I caugh, even back then, I knew in the back of my mind that its not responsible to keep everything regardless of size.

Is showing off a stringer of fish really worth hurting a population? I mean, is it really that important to impress people you do not know and will probably never see again? Maybe Im off track here, but thats the only reason I can see for keeping a giant bass or trout. Maybe Im wrong....

I agree. The big ones aren't good eating. Just like the deer or elk with the big racks aren't as good as the younger ones or the cows and does. But you can't catch and release a deer or an elk. So throw the bigguns back after you take a pic. My problem is with people who pass judgement on anyone who eats a bass, regardless of size. If you don't want to eat any bass, don't. But don't push it off on me. I will go by state set limits when I want to. If a person thinks it's wrong, then get the state to change the limits to C&R only and I will abide by that.

[retaliate]

Originally Posted by arkansasbasser

I have never fished that river but since I moved here in 1996 I have heard people talk about catching 100+ per day there. And I still hear people telling me that, even today. The river guide services advertise 100+, even today. It's been my experiance that rivers hold up very well to pressure because they are fed from so many different sources, especially if they are allowed to flood in their natural flood plain every year. Look at the Mississippi. It receives intense pressure all along it's route but keeps producing like crazy. The Ouachita river (my stomping grounds) in Arkansas and Louisania gets intense bass fishing pressure and just seems to get better every year. I'm not saying that you can't overfish a resource. But I am saying that a decline in numbers isn't always because of fishermen.

Can't speak for the Giudes, they drift down to less accessable areas, & maybe do still catch 100+ per day for their customers, I bet they encourage C&R tho, where I fish, & I only fish there a little when Bow Hunting in the area anymore, I've seen famlies taking everything they catch, sometimes 40 fish or more, all legal from what I saw, & as a result fish populations have been greatly reduced in thoses areas, I agree the state has a set limit, & anybody can legally keep 5 fish per day each, & eat them if they want, but in order to save a fishery from being over fished, people have to set their own limit sometimes, when they know in their heart there isn't enough fish for everybody to take home, I often regulate myself way before the State tells me to, it's just the right thing to do.

[Rauly]

Thread has been closed. Per Moderator vote.