ebob2435 Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 I've been bass fishing for most of my life. Gave it up for awhile ,but back in it heavier than ever. I talked to a fish biologist the other day. They are draining a few older small lakes in our area ,so that they can dredge them out. I asked him about the larger lake in that area. Asked him why the larger fish were so hard to catch. He told me that there is to many 12" bass in the lake and that some of them need to be kept by the fishermen instead of releasing then all back. I've always released my bass over the years. What do you fishermen think about not taking bass for years has done to the bass population in the smaller lakes? 1 Quote
Super User Felix77 Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 Hard to argue with the pro. I would suspect this is the same around alot of lakes. Especially the smaller ones. Catch and Release is a great thing but most people don't read the fine print which states that you can keep some which are of legal size. I think that bass isn't the tastiest of fish so that is part 2 of the equation. Kind of tasteless in my opinion. 2 Quote
JigMe Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Bass doesn't taste too great, I kept one and never again. Crappie or Walleye is a different story, yummie... 2 Quote
ebob2435 Posted February 8, 2013 Author Posted February 8, 2013 I can see his point about people keeping some to eat. I would hate to see any big bass eaten, but I don't see the harm in thinning the smaller ones out some. As far as taste goes, I wouldn't know but may find out. lol Quote
ProCrafter Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 We have several fisheries that have an over abundance of Smallmouth so the DFW instituted a raise in the keep totals from 5 to 10 per day to help bring the ratio back into check and we have seen a size increase from a 1-1/2 lb per fish average to a 2-1/2 lb average and still have alot of sub 12 inch fish and a shore breakfast of Bacon wrapped Smallmouth Filets and eggs is the Bomb!! Largemouth...no...yuk!!! 1 Quote
Super User Darren. Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 I kept a bass or two when I was a kid. My Mom fried 'em up for me. Don't think I've kept one since then. Prefer to CPR 'em. Crappie. Eaten a few, but pretty much throw everything back in fresh water. Salt? Still CPR, but if I were out with some buddies, we'd probably keep some of the good-tasting fare of the sea. Quote
Super User Teal Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 I hardly ever keep fish. If i know i am going to be supplying a fish fry then ill make sure to keep them. (But when i play for keeps im targeting stripers, crappie, or white perch) The only exception is Flounder. Everytime i go the Chesapeke bay for flounder fishing, im playing for keeps! and the way that trip works out is, there is a fish fry when i come home. Quote
Super User slonezp Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 Bass tastes just fine, especially when it's caught in colder water 2 Quote
Trailer Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 From the state where road-kill possum is a cuisine, I love bass and crappie. No harm in keeping a few and frying them. Dinks of course. Quote
Jig Meister Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 I am going to start keeping a few this season to weed out the smaller ones. Fish is fish to me, and I eat for a nutrition stand point not so much for flavor, and oil + spices = good taste to anything. Quote
nascar2428 Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 My fishing buddies know they will have an extra limit if I go with them. If I'm catching em, I'm not cleaning em, and I'm not eating em. They know I just go to fish!! Quote
Hyrule Bass Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 part of the problem is if everyone caught and release in a lake thats loaded with 12inch or smaller bass, the fish become stunted and dont grow big because there is so much competition for food. i'll put it like this. say you have a small lake with a bunch of small stunted bass. most bass fishermen seem to be catch and release with bass. what they dont realize is theyre working against themselves if they want to catch bigger fish. by constantly returning the stunted fish to the water, theyre lessening the chances of bass growing bigger in that lake. What most strictly catch and release guys seem to forget is selective harvest can be a good thing too. keeping some of the smaller bass can be good for the overall fishery. also part of the problem is some people putting bass up on a pedestal like theyre some kind of royalty or something. you know the type that gets ticked if they see someone keep a bass whether to eat or mount. or the type that wants to cry and/or feel bad if they hook a bass and it bleeds a little, or floats when they release it... 4 Quote
jignfule Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 I haven't keeped any of my bass for years. I'd rather catch them twice then eat them once, But for pond management I can surely see the wisdom in harvesting the neccessary numbers. Quote
Super User Jig Man Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 I looked into stocking some of the ponds on one of my farms. I contacted a fisheries biologist and talked to him about the stocking and harvesting rates. He told me that to keep things balanced I would need to take out 21 bass for every acre of surface that they comprised. So my guess is the smaller lakes need to be harvested. Quote
jhoffman Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Im gonna be the odd man out for a second time today. While there is only so much forage I dont think that has anything to do with you not catching them. Id bet its more than likely pressure shutting them down. Some lakes see wicked pressure, my home lake sees at minimum two tournaments a week every week the season is open. You could go draw a zero, hit a full moon about 3am and pull a 20lb sack. Quote
CountBassula Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 I guess I'm in the minority that actually enjoys eating Bass :-) though recently I've only kept one for food; here in FL they tell us to eat 1 a month that's over 14 inches or 1 a week that's under 14 inches, due to heavy metal content. And they do taste good, especially in flour, egg, Italian seasoned gread crumbs and deep fried... oh yea baby!!!! Red Earth, what you refer to is technically defined at "Smelly tree hugging hippie ******" LOL :-) though I still believe in treating the fish nice and do minimum harm if doing catch-and-release. If I'm catching to eat, fish get's pacified as soon as I have it off the hook (don't want it to suffocate, that just seams cruel) and then on ice it goes. I don't loose sleep if bass get's hooked by gills and bleeds like mad, or if it takes me 2 minutes to work that d**n hook out of it... 2 Quote
Super User Sam Posted February 8, 2013 Super User Posted February 8, 2013 If you ask a pond manager they will tell you, as proclaimed by Red Earth, that there can be too many bass in a pond and they will compete for the available food and not grow as fast or as fat as expected. This is why pond managers tell you to harvest the smaller bass out of the pond. I would sumise the same goes for a lake, Did you know there is a "female bass lake only" in the USA? You catch beautiful fat ladies cast after cast after cast. No males, just females. I cannot rememer the lake's name. Wonder if you can Google "female bass only pond" and find it? Quote
CoBass Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Total C&R can definitely have an adverse effect on bass size when it comes to smaller waters. There is a pond I fish that is owned by a local water company. They stocked it with bass, bluegill, and perch for insect control and don't want to spend any more money on fish so they made it strictly C&R. With no fish ever being removed, there is an abundance of twelve inch and smaller bass in the pond. The original bass stocked have reached about 15-16 inches so they aren't big enough to eat the 12 inchers and with all of the competition from the smaller bass, the perch and gill fry get eaten up as soon as they hatch. Removing a bunch of the smaller bass would reduce the competition for food and might actually allow some of the gills and perch to grow to a size where they would actually provide a decent meal for the bigger fish. This pond is only six years old and what the strict C&R has produced is one class of bass that are 15-16 inches long and growing very slowly, one class each of gills and perch that are too big to be eaten by the bigger bass, and tons of smaller bass that don't have enough food to push past that 12 inch range. Quote
craww Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Ive found bass pretty good if you remove the skin. Takes away the strong "fishy" taste, (which I don't care for). It lends itself well to whatever its cooked in/with. My favorite way? Take some fillets and cook in a bed of pico de gio (sp?) on the grill. Healthy and delicious. 1 Quote
Hyrule Bass Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 If you ask a pond manager they will tell you, as proclaimed by Red Earth, that there can be too many bass in a pond and they will compete for the available food and not grow as fast or as fat as expected. This is why pond managers tell you to harvest the smaller bass out of the pond. I would sumise the same goes for a lake, Did you know there is a "female bass lake only" in the USA? You catch beautiful fat ladies cast after cast after cast. No males, just females. I cannot rememer the lake's name. Wonder if you can Google "female bass only pond" and find it? ive heard of female bass only lakes, there was one featured on a fishing show last year, cant remember much about it though. there are more than one of these lakes in the country too Quote
Southfork Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 I personally hardly ever keep bass, but I would never look down on those that do. Quote
Dave Hull Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Every body of water has a certain "carrying capacity". In the same manner that an acre of pasture can only support x number of cows an acre of water can only support x lbs of fish flesh.Obviously all bodies of water don't have the same "carrying capacity". To simplify let's say a body of water can support 500 lbs of fish per acre. That could be comprised of 500 1lb fish or 100 5lbers . So yea if there are an overabundance of small fish then there is no room for anything else so removing some smaller fish frees up resources to support larger ones too. So there is nothing wrong with eating bass and throwing them all back in certain waters can be a mistake that leads to stunted fish. Just keep the smaller ones because removing trophies removes the genetics that may have lead to it's size. BTW stunted fish can sometimes be identified by the fact that the seem to have larger eyes than normal for it's body size. A bass's eyes continue to grow larger throughout the life of a fish just like a humans nose does. Bass are tasty! They are of the sunfish family. Although I prefer members of the perch family for the table I eat bass on occasion. They are mush tastier (to me) than trout or catfish. Quote
greyleg33 Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 This is a known problem and can happen on some pretty good sized waters. As well as over populating the fish also learn not to get caught. I haven't fished there for years but at one time Lake Shasta had a 12" size limit. It was amazing how many 11 3/4" fish came out of that lake. Quote
SudburyBasser Posted February 9, 2013 Posted February 9, 2013 Up here in Canada the C&R ethos isn't the religion that it turned into down there. I would wager that most people keep the worthwhile fish they catch. Myself, I tend to C&R most of the bass I catch but I do bring some home occasionally for eating. Personally, I rather like the taste of bass. Tastiest of fish? No, but they aren't bad eating at all. On a slightly related note we had a debate about this a few months back after I posed the question. Quote
Super User WRB Posted February 9, 2013 Super User Posted February 9, 2013 Every pond, small lake or larger lakes have there own ideal predator to prey ratio for maximum harvest rate per man hour of fishing. Fish biologist tend to manage lakes optimum harvest rate of number of keeper size fish (bass) for each lake they are managing. The biologist preform electro shocking to physically count the number and size of bass per acre to determine if the fishery is being maintained properly. If they find an abundance of a year class, they will have anglers target that class to reduce the numbers or put a slot limit in affect to protect a low population year class. If everyone fishing the lake ignores there recommendation then there management suffers and the goals isn't achieved. If a lake or pond is never fished and the predator and prey ratios are unmanaged will the lake or pond suffer a catastrophic population crisis? More than likely everything will balance, nature has away of doing that. The problem is introducing man into the equation, the ultimate predator. Ounce we start fishing. A fishery we tend to set everything into a spin and out of balance. Catch and release doesn't mean catch release and survive, a small % (3 to 10) of every bass you release doesn't survive, so there is a harvest rate and usually the largest and smallest population of bass tend to get over harvested where there is heavy fishing pressure. The biggest bass are the most vulnerable. Tom Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.