Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
Your not quiet right, I have said that the bigger bass have been over harvested and all that seem to be left is small fish ..
In the past on an average day on Jordanelle I would catch and releases 30 to 40 Small mouth bass in size from 12" up to 19".. But the best day I have had this year is only 26 bass with the biggest that day at 15 3/4" and only 4 bass over 12"..
It shows on Jordanelle by the numbers of bass fisherman you see on any given day just how the numbers have changed on both fish and the low numbers of fisherman..
Why spend the money to go fishing on a lake to only catch little fish, it shows that I am not the only one that thinks the fishing is bad..
[signature]
Posts: 6,126
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
dubob Why would any one want to take fish home that are 10" or less?? Because of bones that bass have and the scales about all the people I know of fillet them..
Now how much meat or how many people will 6 bass under 10" feed??
To me they are not worth the time or mess it takes to clean..
Do I keep bass YES at times on some waters..
[signature]
Posts: 121
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
[quote bassrods]FYI ??
Who is talking about black bass????
I was talking about SM bass..[/quote]
Hmmm.... don't know if playing dumb or...???
[signature]
Posts: 4,630
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
Hey Pat, long time no see. There are crawdads in Jordanelle, I kept some bass last year for dinner and they had craws in their bellies. I took pics because it surprised me. I know, I know but the DNR was preaching keeping the bass so I did my part. 4 dinks in the fryer, red beans and rice=scrumdelumptious.
[signature]
Posts: 35,755
Threads: 262
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
49
[#0000FF]I'm aware that there ARE a few crawdaddies in Jordanelle. But they were not there in numbers when the lake was first filled and the smallies were planted. And they have never been plentiful enough to provide a major forage source to stimulate rapid growth in the smallies.
I keep a few underfooters once in a while myself. I have never found any crawdads in them. Of the three I kept this past week, only one had any food remnants and that was one baby perch.
Also, in walking the shoreline I have only seen a couple of crawdad remnants. On most lakes with large 'dad populations there will be lots of claws and other body parts from deads or sheds.
No argument that they are in the lake but I suspect that whatever population there is might be more prevalent in only a few small areas. It would be great if the water level stabilized for a couple of years and if there were weed beds like Starvation to provide habitat for crawdad spawning and growth. But those conditions don't exist in Jordy.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,883
Threads: 50
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
22
[quote bassrods]dubob Why would any one want to take fish home that are 10" or less?? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Well duh - how about to eat.[/#800000][/font]
Because of bones that bass have and the scales about all the people I know of fillet them.. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Filleting fish to cook and eat is kind of a no brainer Cliff. I, and most of the folks I know, fillet ALL fish for consumption - salmon, trout, bass, perch, crappie, catfish, etc.
[/#800000][/font]
Now how much meat or how many people will 6 bass under 10" feed?? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Can't speak for others, but my bride and I can get 2 good, filling meals out of those six 10" bass.[/#800000][/font]
To me they are not worth the time or mess it takes to clean.. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]That doesn't mean it isn't worth it for lots of other folks. And has already been stated ad nauseam, keeping those little fish WILL help the resource.[/#800000][/font]
Do I keep bass YES at times on some waters.. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Well, that's a start.[/#800000][/font][/quote]
[signature]
Bob Hicks, from Utah
I'm 81 years young and going as hard as I can for as long as I can.
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
0
Bigger fish are full of mercury and we all know if you ingest it you stiffer won't peck up. It's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[signature]
Posts: 3,883
Threads: 50
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
22
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Well okay then. We should start a movement to save those stiffers. [angelic][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Bob Hicks, from Utah
I'm 81 years young and going as hard as I can for as long as I can.
"Free men do not ask permission to bear arms."
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote bassrods]FYI ??
Who is talking about black bass????
I was talking about SM bass..[/quote]
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=black+bass
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote FishMcFisherson]
I have a legitimate concern that many large non-trout species are going to be over harvested. [/quote]
No you don't.
Look, you obviously do not understand fisheries management -- and you're not alone, if that makes you feel any better.
Overharvest is an easy thing to fix. If overharvest actually does become a problem, then we simply modify the regulations to accomodate those issues and then stock more fish to make up for the loss. That's easy.
What's hard is fixing underharvest (or, rather overpopulations). That's what the problem is.
If overharvest actually does become a problem, then we can fix that really easy. I honestly don't see much changing with current angler harvest. But if a few people actually join your club, then I feel like some of our fisheries may actually increase in quality -- so, if you find a loophole and figure you can make some extra money, then I say: go for it!
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote bassrods] BUT if you read what I said you will see I said the ones I have seen.. Meaning I have not seen them all but the numbers of fish SM bass over 12" are down and the ones over 17" are all but gone..[/quote]
I suppose this thread is circling the drain and this is probably a waste of time but one more.
Here is what you originally said.
"In the gill net studies of over the years that I have seen the numbers of small fish has gone down not up.. "
What on earth do fish numbers over 12 inches have to do with the numbers of small fish? (fish under 12 inches) Yes we all know the numbers of fish over 12 inches has declined but the number of fish under 12 inches has skyrocketed in there. If you can't catch them that is on you.
On second thought, nevermind. Try to figure out what a black bass is first. I'm out.
[signature]
Posts: 761
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
Well thank you. I feel much better now that a condescending know it all can tell me what my concerns are.
If the dwr was so perfect, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I realize that this is a great idea for SOME fisheries. To make this change across the board just doesn't make any sense. Not every water body in Utah is suffering, yet every body is going to be subject to the new rule.
As quoted before, my concern is over harvesting of large fish. Are you going to tell me that if this plan doesn't work that the dwr is going to plant 20 lb catfish in Utah Lake? Because they aren't.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote FishMcFisherson]Well thank you. I feel much better now that a condescending know it all can tell me what my concerns are. [/quote]
you are very welcome. I'm glad to be able to help out.
[quote FishMcFisherson]
If the dwr was so perfect, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
As quoted before, my concern is over harvesting of large fish. Are you going to tell me that if this plan doesn't work that the dwr is going to plant 20 lb catfish in Utah Lake? Because they aren't.[/quote]
I don't ever recall the DWR, or anyone else, saying they are perfect. Far from it. Especially when you have the public that thinks they should be involved in management -- that's where the issues come into play. Just read this very thread -- you have anglers that think you need to protect ever big fish in our waters, which very often has opposite effects from what the anglers desires are. It's called a lack of understanding.
You are correct, the DWR would not stock 20lb catfish.
I want to know who's catching these 20lb catfish today? Why are we not seeing pictures posted all over the interwebs with this plethora of giant catfish?!
Further, since we already know all about the magic of population density and growth rates, if a plethora of 20lb catfish were being removed from Utah Lake, wouldn't that mean that catfish were in that zone of maximum growth rates? And when fish are in that zone, this means you end up with BIG fish!!
I hardly think that the "giant" catfish population at Utah Lake is in trouble. If anything, it's going to be all the small catfish that people are going to load their freezers up with -- and wouldn't that actually help make more big catfish? I think you should look at this from another perspective, and look at the advantages it may provide.
One advantage is that you get to quit your job and start a new club!!
[signature]
Posts: 5,745
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2010
Reputation:
0
Hasn't this post been locked yet?
[center][inline "Popcorn Giddy.jpg"]
[/center]
|
