Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DWR Possession Recommendation
#21
Cliff, you really need to do more reading....here let's start you with this:
http://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology...rvest.html

Some excerpts:
" Alternately, slow growing bass may not attain 3 pounds until age 5 or 6. Stringent regulations on a slow-growing population may do more harm than good. Why? Forage fish availability largely governs the growth rate of bass and slow growing populations result from insufficient food or too many fish competing for a limited amount of food. So, restricting the harvest of bass from a slow growing population may make matters worse by further reducing growth rates due to low food availability per individual. Extreme cases of slow growth often occur in farm ponds where bass may nearly cease growing, resulting in very few large fish and many 10-12 inch fish. Ponds with very slow growth would benefit from harvest by reducing bass abundance, increasing the amount of food available per fish, which would improve growth rates. Slow growth also occurs in larger lakes and reservoirs, and regulations on these populations may be detrimental to the production of large fish."

"If growth rate of adult fish is adequate, size limits will improve the number of large fish in lakes with high fishing mortality. However, in lakes where fishing mortality is low due to low fishing effort or high rates of catch-and-release, size limits will usually not improve the number of large fish in the population."

"Lakes with high recruitment are often the best fisheries if growth rates are rapid and mortality rates are relatively low. This causes many fish to survive to a preferred size by anglers. However, high recruitment can be detrimental if growth rates are slow due to the addition of many more hungry mouths to feed!"

" For lakes with slow growth, the only practical tool for reducing the abundance of small fish and improving growth rates is angler harvest. This is a tool that has declined in effectiveness due to a strict catch-and-release ethic among bass anglers."

I am glad that they do get it in Texas and Florida!
[signature]
Reply
#22
Once someone's mind latches on to voodoo ichthyology it's really hard to use science and reason to dispel those myths.
[signature]
Reply
#23
[quote bassrods]

And can you tell us why we had so many more bass in Jordanelle for so many years ( numbers and size) and now we have less in size and lots less in numbers??
[/quote]


Huh???? Yes the size of the average Jordanelle bass is way down, but IMO there are more small bass in there than ever. If you can't catch numbers similar to before or higher, that is a YOU problem.
[signature]
Reply
#24
Cliff,
do you buy into the theory that when Jordanelle first opened there was a lot of new structure. That structure is now gone with little new structure to replace it?

Also when Jordanelle was first opened to anglers, Trout were the main priority for anglers. Very few people targeted the Bass there.

Things have changed there and we all know it. We now have to look at new approaches to manage Jordanelle.
You have even seen this to be true as you will spend time fishing for the big Browns in there.
What regulations have changed to allow the Browns to get so big?
[signature]
Reply
#25
I didn't know you have changed your name..
And I would still like him to answer my questions so hopefully we can find out some of the truth..
[signature]
Reply
#26
In the gill net studies of over the years that I have seen the numbers of small fish has gone down not up..[crazy]
[signature]
Reply
#27
I know this is just an open forum, but would it be reasonable to have LMB from Pelican LEGALLY moved to UT lake?

It seems the idea has been utilized already in So. UT and I'm sure we could round up a posse to catch a few bass for the project.

Pelican was one of my favorite destinations on planet earth until this year. The water clarity and condition of the bass are astoundingly poor. (As of Aug 15th 2014) The lake almost seems like a lost cause, which is a travesty. So whatever can be done, should be.
[signature]
Reply
#28
All lakes change from year to year and amount of water from year to year..

But the bigger fish will only disappear as fast as they did only by harvest or die off..

And if you have fish that get or grow to the same size and very few over that, that has put out bigger fish in the past is being over harvested..That comes from many other states..
[signature]
Reply
#29
[quote bassrods]In the gill net studies of over the years that I have seen the numbers of small fish has gone down not up..[crazy][/quote]

Really?, I personally helped the DWR pull nets and do the gill net study a short time ago and know firsthand that your statement above is factually incorrect.
[signature]
Reply
#30
[#0000FF]Pineview is subject to the same regulations as Jordanelle...and is an older lake. But Pineview still produces LOTS of big smallies. There was one caught 2 weeks ago that would have broken your record...but the guy doesn't care about records.

What is the difference? FOOD. Jordanelle was cleaned out by the smallies. They ate all the chubs and when the perch had a big dieoff so did the big smallies. There are no crawdads in Jordanelle. On the other hand, there are gazillions of small perch and crappies in Pineview...as well as crawdads, baby bullhead catfish, sunfish and other forage items. If there is enough food in a lake there will be big fish. Anglers and regulations are not the source of the problems.

You can always tell an opinionated person. You just can't tell them much. When their minds are made up you only confuse them by offering facts.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]
Reply
#31
[quote bassrods]In the gill net studies of over the years that I have seen the numbers of small fish has gone down not up..[crazy][/quote]

Umm...just an FYI: Gillnets are not widely considered the most accurate methods for population samples of black bass.
[signature]
Reply
#32
I'm Confused. Bassrods has in numerous posts claimed that various lakes are filled with undersized fish. Now he says that their numbers are down.
[signature]
Reply
#33
Moderators, please take away the ability of dubob to use large fonts on BFT.[Wink]
[signature]
Reply
#34
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 1]Jiminy cripes, how else do you expect me to get Cliff's attention? [sly][/size][/#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."
Reply
#35
Touché'????[Tongue]
[signature]
Reply
#36
not quite shure about the ,,,findings ive seen a lot of anglers keep everything they get im backing up the dwr on most things ,,,cant go there on this one no info. drew give me a little help
[signature]
Reply
#37
Yes. But, if there is no longer a limit, honest anglers will now be perfectly in their legal rights to "happy harvest".
[signature]
Reply
#38
Again, you have either missed or chosen to ignore the explicit written statement that daily limits still apply. You make your own arguments moot.
[signature]
Reply
#39
You guys crack me up. Thank God for the Snake River. Please make tacos outta 12 to 14 inchers.
[signature]
Reply
#40
Ah, so I'll only be able to keep 50 bluegill, 30 cisco, 24 bullhead, 8 channel cats, 50 crappie, 6 large/small mouth, 6 pike, 1 tiger musky, 10 sacramento perch, 10 walleye, 10 whitefish, 6 wiper, and 50 perch every single day, regardless if I eat them or not? I think my club freezer will be just fine.
[signature]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)