Hurricane Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 On 4/15/2016 at 8:56 AM, buzzed bait said: i don't disagree with you one bit..... but that said, i ain't eating **** from most of the waters around Atlanta.... i'd have a third eye in no time! lmao.....
RichF Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 10 hours ago, Catt said: While I do not have a degree in Fisheries Biology I do have a degre in the Philosophy of Science. I've spent a couple dozen years studying the research do by & working with some of TP&W top fisheries biologist. I suggest you do a little more research other than clicking on TP&W's website, then maybe we'll talk! Again, how is this relevant to any of my comments? You're obviously trying to call me out on something but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
Super User J Francho Posted April 21, 2016 Super User Posted April 21, 2016 Go back and read what you both typed, with an open mind. You'll see you were a bit dismissive.That's all Catt is getting at. Not everything on the internet is keyboard muscles. The Share-A-Lunker program is pretty unique. I'm not sure it's the 100% right way, but they are at least trying something. Up here, bass are second class citizens when it comes to environmental programs. 1
RB 77 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 I'm all for people keeping their catch and eating it if that's their prerogative. I personally don't eat Bass because its not even on my radar. Actually any fresh water fish gets a pass because of my fridge and freezer being filled with Tuna, Dorado and Yellowtail. My vacuum sealer is my friend! I love my Pelagics!
RichF Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 I don't think my comments were dismissive at all. I simply said that it's not always the best idea to believe what every fisheries biologist says regarding bass management (because of NY's handling of the matter, which it sounds like you're familiar with). I also agreed that removing small fish from the system is common practice when trying to manage a trophy pond/lake. In no way, shape, or form was I trying to insult or downplay anything the TP&W has done with regards to bass management. Any organization that puts forth that kind of effort to enhance something I'm passionate about is A-OK in my book.
Super User WRB Posted April 21, 2016 Super User Posted April 21, 2016 10 hours ago, contium said: Most of the lakes I fish here in Southern California have warnings about eating top level preditor fish, mainly LMB and strippers. The funny thing is that these same lakes supply drinking water. One would think that if the lake is polluted enough to make fish unsafe to eat, it wouldn't be safe to drink. Just curious, name the lakes that have warnings about eating fish in SoCal? If there is a health hazard from eating fish that lake would be closed to the public. That fact is our lakes are managed to provide a renewable catch and eat fish resource. The only fish raised and stocked are rainbow trout because they are not a renewable fish species in Southern California, they must be sterile so they don't contaminate the phantom native Steelhead trout population. Tom 1
Super User Catt Posted April 21, 2016 Super User Posted April 21, 2016 23 hours ago, RichF said: I have a degree in Biology and have worked in the environmental field for 8 years conducting scientific studies and monitoring projects. In reality, sample sizes are always too low, data collection techniques are often weak, and there are far too many variables present to draw definitive conclusions. The "take the smaller fish out" mentality probably works for small ponds/lakes (if you want to grow bigger bass) but I'm not so sure about larger bodies of water. I feel like these larger ecosystems balance themselves out for the most part. I'm a big proponent of catch and release and cringe when I see people keep bass. I surmise your sample size is to low & your data collection techniques are weak! TP&W's sample size is 6,000 public lakes & their data collection techniques are rivaled by no one! Your a big proponent of catch & release even though all research data proves selective harvesting far exceeds C&R. I aint calling anyone out but explain how your 8 yes experience out weighs 40 something yrs?
Super User J Francho Posted April 21, 2016 Super User Posted April 21, 2016 Catt, just leave it... Here's something relevant to the discussion:
RichF Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 26 minutes ago, Catt said: I surmise your sample size is to low & your data collection techniques are weak! TP&W's sample size is 6,000 public lakes & their data collection techniques are rivaled by no one! Your a big proponent of catch & release even though all research data proves selective harvesting far exceeds C&R. I aint calling anyone out but explain how your 8 yes experience out weighs 40 something yrs? Again, I said nothing negative about TP&W. My original comment had nothing to even do with that organization. I simply stated that it isn't ALWAYS best to just agree with your local fisheries biologists because they may not have certain species' best interest on the forefront. Like J Francho said, up here in the north, bass are second class citizens. Our fisheries folks are much for interested in managing for trout, salmon, and walleye, leaving bass as an afterthought. What's best for those species isn't necessarily best for bass. Quote Your a big proponent of catch & release even though all research data proves selective harvesting far exceeds C&R. I completely agree with this within the context of growing trophy sized fish in a closely managed lake. Outside of that, I'm skeptical. That's all I'm saying. Our views on C&R are obviously going to be different given that we are from very different parts of the country. Our bass populations are a bit more fragile given our limited growing season which is why I'm a big proponent of the practice. I understand it's a much different dynamic in the south. Your bodies of water are more fit to handle steady harvesting. Quote I aint calling anyone out but explain how your 8 yes experience out weighs 40 something yrs? I certainly wasn't saying that my experience was superior to anyone's. I was just sharing my personal exposure to scientific sampling/data collection and the "not so perfect" reality of it. No need to lockdown fellas, I'll say no more.
Josh Smith Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Indiana has river slot limits, and I've pulled some really nice smallmouth from the Wabash. Lakes here suffer from a 14in keeper size. My experience is that 12"-14" should probably be kept. Those critters eat all the food. They're fun to catch but bigger and better can be had. Josh 2
Red Bear Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, Josh Smith said: Indiana has river slot limits, and I've pulled some really nice smallmouth from the Wabash. Lakes here suffer from a 14in keeper size. My experience is that 12"-14" should probably be kept. Those critters eat all the food. They're fun to catch but bigger and better can be had. Josh i actually like a slot limit that says you cant keep fish between whatever lengths over one that says you can only keep fish between these lengths. though the example i have pertains to stocked striped bass, the same can be applied to large mouth. at Smith Mountain Lake in VA, there used to be a minimum 20 inch length to keep a fish, and it was considered a trophy striper lake. but then they had a fish kill from copepods. a lot of the big fish died. soon after they instituted a new policy. stripers 26-36 inches had to be thrown back from october to april(i believe thats the months) and in the warmer months the limit was removed due to warmer water temps and higher mortality rate of releasing stripers. next thing you know as the fish population began to rebound there were a lot of fish in the 26-30 inch range being caught and had to be released. there were too many fish in the same age/size range in the lake, the slot limit was recently raised, 30-40 inch fish must now be released during the cooler months. this promotes the removal of fish 26-30 inches and is preventing them from becoming stunted while also protecting the lower population of big fish. this method allows protection to a class of fish as it grows, while allowing the harvesting of smaller more abundant fish, and prevent stunting at the same time... 1
contium Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 3 hours ago, WRB said: Just curious, name the lakes that have warnings about eating fish in SoCal? If there is a health hazard from eating fish that lake would be closed to the public. That fact is our lakes are managed to provide a renewable catch and eat fish resource. The only fish raised and stocked are rainbow trout because they are not a renewable fish species in Southern California, they must be sterile so they don't contaminate the phantom native Steelhead trout population. Tom Off the top of my head, Pyramid, Silverwood and Puddingstone. I have seen the signs elswhere though. http://oehha.ca.gov/fish/so_cal/silverwood.html http://oehha.ca.gov/fish/so_cal/pyramidlake2013.html http://www.dailybulletin.com/environment-and-nature/20140929/anglers-warned-about-contaminated-fish-at-puddingstone-reservoir http://oehha.ca.gov/fish/special_reports/advisorylakesres.html
Super User WRB Posted April 21, 2016 Super User Posted April 21, 2016 You gotta love CA to live here! You are right, women under 45 and young children shouldn't eat LMB and men can eat 1 serving a week according to the OEHHA. I remember seeing signs about 10 years ago during the height of the mercury contamination era published by UC Berkley. Tom
thomas15 Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 At my local mudhole (Beltzville Lake) we complain about how difficult it is to catch LMB and it is. It's difficult for us because we use artificial bait. Those who use live bait do catch them with ease. There are several guide services that run pontoons like a party boat. Their main customers are from Philadelphia and those customers keep their fish so I don't feel that we need to take any more because I feel that they have got us covered.
BassThumb Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 On April 21, 2016 at 10:06 PM, contium said: Most of the lakes I fish here in Southern California have warnings about eating top level preditor fish, mainly LMB and strippers. The funny thing is that these same lakes supply drinking water. One would think that if the lake is polluted enough to make fish unsafe to eat, it wouldn't be safe to drink. The drinking water is cleaned before it gets to you, while the fish are straight out of the 'unclean' water
WaterWarriorMD Posted April 23, 2016 Posted April 23, 2016 It's either your thing or not. I'll eat catfish and pan-fish occasionally, as well as seafood from the grocery store but I just can't bring myself to eat the greenbacks, I love em too much!
Bob C Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 It's just another fish. I keep a couple almost every time out. Here they have to be 14" to keep so thinning out the small ones isn't an option.
Super User J Francho Posted April 25, 2016 Super User Posted April 25, 2016 I forgot about rock bass (the sunfish family, not the stripers). They're pretty tasty in spring too. Walleye, rock bass, and a couple big sunnies for taste comparison from a couple springs ago: 2
avidone1 Posted April 25, 2016 Posted April 25, 2016 I have some local ponds near me. I fish them occasionally as they can be fun on a good day. a few years ago I noticed this great blue heron was sorta following me around. I had caught a few and I got the distinct impression he was looking for a handout. so I caught another maybe 10" bass, and held it up for him to see. He was cautious but definetly walking my way. He got to within about 10 feet and stopped. I tossed the bass up in the air and he caught it and gulped it down, no sweat. It was the coolest thing. I made a friend that day, and don't care that I may have broken a couple of laws. 3
Bassin407 Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 On April 15, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Catt said: I feel sorry for the guy who cleaned all that lol
Super User geo g Posted April 26, 2016 Super User Posted April 26, 2016 If you come to South Florida don't eat them Mercury levels are high from farming and Big Sugar.
RichF Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 On 4/25/2016 at 10:24 AM, Bob C said: It's just another fish. I keep a couple almost every time out. Here they have to be 14" to keep so thinning out the small ones isn't an option. Not a great attitude to take towards a resource all anglers should respect and strive to protect.
avidone1 Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 18 hours ago, geo g said: If you come to South Florida don't eat them Mercury levels are high from farming and Big Sugar. Yes, sad but true. One a week of 14" bass is ok. One a month of the bigger gals. I still eat one or two 2 pounders a year, and so far I'm not glowing in the dark.................
Bob C Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 2 hours ago, RichF said: Not a great attitude to take towards a resource all anglers should respect and strive to protect. Sorry but it's a fish. Not sure how a bass got itself promoted to sainthood. 8
Super User Catt Posted April 27, 2016 Super User Posted April 27, 2016 4 hours ago, Bob C said: Sorry but it's a fish. Not sure how a bass got itself promoted to sainthood. Merci Beau Coup.
Recommended Posts