Are bigger fish really better?

[NorCalFishinguru]

I just got back from a trout fishing trip to lake amador with mixed feelings. While the trout average 4-5 pounds and give a few drag peeling runs and spectacular leaps when hooked, they are all stocked. Most of them have little nubs instead of full pectoral fins and the upper and lower quarters of their tail fins are shaved down from growing up in holding tanks. Ive always loved to catch trout and admire their beauty, but these huge fish just don't have the same awe inspiring effect that a healthy 14 inch trout would. If ten pound bass were stocked would you really feel proud to catch one? IMO it kind of ruins it but I guess its neat that fisheries such as Amador exist for those who prefer easier to catch size over anything else.

[J Francho]

Most places GROW big bass, they don't STOCK big bass.

Stocker trout are boring....

These guys on the other hand

[Jake.]

Fishing for bass and fishing for trout are totally different. I agree that I would rather catch a 12" wild Brookie in a stream than a 2 pound stocked Rainbow in a trout pond. But for me, bass fishing is about the size of the fish.

[Paul Roberts]

I just got back from a trout fishing trip to lake amador with mixed feelings. While the trout average 4-5 pounds and give a few drag peeling runs and spectacular leaps when hooked, they are all stocked. Most of them have little nubs instead of full pectoral fins and the upper and lower quarters of their tail fins are shaved down from growing up in holding tanks. Ive always loved to catch trout and admire their beauty, but these huge fish just don't have the same awe inspiring effect that a healthy 14 inch trout would. If ten pound bass were stocked would you really feel proud to catch one? IMO it kind of ruins it but I guess its neat that fisheries such as Amador exist for those who prefer easier to catch size over anything else.

Agree with you 100%. What you describe are captive fish in a pretend fishery. Akin to antlers grown for bragging rights in a fenced hunt. A step above a computer game.

The trout J Francho is showing is another thing altogether -it's neither indigenous, nor streambred (although some of those are), but its had several years in the wild, and has a complex life history pattern that has the potential to reach completion. A challenging and wonderful fishery. The alternative (the fish farm) is ...as J put it...boring. How'd you do that John! Put it in one word LOL.

Luckily we don't have to be concerned with this with bass. Although we could always split hairs, and probably will.

I'm something of a hair splitter -looking for both challenge and beauty in my time outdoors. That's why I've found myself trout fishing mostly with fly-tackle, and do virtually all my hunting now with primitive/traditional archery gear I've made myself. Its about satisfaction, and for me, it's just not found by the easiest, or even most effective, route.

[Marty]

"Are bigger fish really better?"

Not necessarily. I've caught many fish of various species that fought much better than bigger individuals. I remember a 6# walleye that came in like dead weight while 3#ers from the same water fought vigorously.

Nevertheless, many, if not most of us, are looking to catch as big fish as we can.

[J Francho]

I was being a little silly, LOL.

I'm all about friends and personal achievement.

Size counts often with me, but there are some fish that represent more....

This brown smolt took my bait while I was adjusting the shot pattern in the "tune up hole" that usually holds no fish. He fought like a beast and made me laugh my butt off. Best trout of two years ago.

This fish was the 1st bass I caught while fishing with a new partner that would be a part of many, many adventures.

My 1st legitimate salmon. Took about 50 hours of casting from Summerville Pier, but I finally got one. Not very big, but worthy.

The last year my father and I went on our annual smallie trip. One of over 100 fish caught that day.

[Branuss04]

LMAO... Amador trout should not be considered trout at all.  I would MUCH rather catch a 10" native brown out of a small creek then catch a 6# "trout" at Amador.

But yes... I do agree with your point. 

[NorCalFishinguru]

Most places GROW big bass, they don't STOCK big bass.

Exactly my point. Catching a huge bass that grew that big out in the wild against all the odds is something to be proud of. I'm just saying that IF big bass WERE to be stocked, much of the enjoyment of the sport we all love would be lost.

[Paul Roberts]

Lucking into a fish doesn't float my boat either -big or not. I'm into personal growth, which does not REQUIRE big fish.

[roadwarrior]

For me, bigger is always better. I would rather

be skunked fishing for big bass than catch a

boatload of 1 1/2 - 2 lb bass. I quit fishing 5"

Senkos because they attract too many fish.

Small bass will still attack the 6" version, but

it weeds out most of them.

Three or four times a year I fish the White River

below Bull Shoals Dam. I fish a sculpin for big

German Browns, my partners always fish for

rainbows. On average, they catch 30+ per day

while I'm just looking for a bite.

[SirSnookalot]

Is bigger better?  Someone has got to be kidding, without doubt bigger is better at least for me.  I would not waste my time fishing for the rarest fish in the world if the biggest of the species is a mere 2lbs.  Go catch a 30 or 40# muskie or 100# tarpon and tell me bigger isn't better.  If bigger wasn't better why would BR members post photos of their bigger fish and why is it so important to some to list their personal best?

[Jake.]

Go catch a 30 or 40# muskie or 100# tarpon and tell me bigger isn't better.

But if bigger is always better, than why would you even fish for the 40 lb. Muskie when you can catch a 100 lb. Tarpon? Tarpon grow to much larger sizes, so why would you bother with the Muskie?

[The Bassinator]

I'm happy when i catch fish.  Even if i know they wont be big its still fun to see if you can use your knowledge to outwit a creature who most of the time is unseen.  Sure its nice to catch big ones and some times i dont like to catch small ones because its too easy.  It's like the game Clue.  You always suspected that the murderer killed Colonel Mustard in the Dining Room with the candlestick but now you have proof that it was Mr. Bass all along regardless of whether he was 100lbs. or 350lbs.  ;D

[SirSnookalot]

Go catch a 30 or 40# muskie or 100# tarpon and tell me bigger isn't better.

But if bigger is always better, than why would you even fish for the 40 lb. Muskie when you can catch a 100 lb. Tarpon? Tarpon grow to much larger sizes, so why would you bother with the Muskie?

How many tarpon do you see swimming around in Minnesota? There are big fish in almost every location.

[Jake.]

Go catch a 30 or 40# muskie or 100# tarpon and tell me bigger isn't better.

But if bigger is always better, than why would you even fish for the 40 lb. Muskie when you can catch a 100 lb. Tarpon? Tarpon grow to much larger sizes, so why would you bother with the Muskie?

How many tarpon do you see swimming around in Minnesota? There are big fish in almost every location.

That wasn't the best example. But my point is, if bigger is always better, why would you fish for any species other than the biggest one in your area? It can be just as fun to catch a 15 lb. red as a 40 lb. King as long as you are using gear that is scaled for the size of the fish you are going after.

[SirSnookalot]

That wasn't the best example. But my point is, if bigger is always better, why would you fish for any species other than the biggest one in your area?

It can be just as fun to catch a 15 lb. red as a 40 lb. King as long as you are using gear that is scaled for the size of the fish you are going after.

You have a good point!

For me it's the technique, I want the biggest on the lightest spinning or fly(kings are bait and wait, not my desired way of fishing).

[Paul Roberts]

That wasn't the best example. But my point is, if bigger is always better, why would you fish for any species other than the biggest one in your area?

It can be just as fun to catch a 15 lb. red as a 40 lb. King as long as you are using gear that is scaled for the size of the fish you are going after.

You have a good point!

For me it's the technique, I want the biggest on the lightest spinning or fly(kings are bait and wait, not my desired way of fishing).

Exactly. For me it's technique too. And all types of fish and fishing offer challenges. Beyond that,or maybe beneath it, lies my intense and unabashed love for the natural world, which I cannot find in a fish farm -going back to the original post.

In keeping with the original post--You have a choice to fish:

1). A 50acre man-made pond regularly stocked with factory rainbow trout. They have warped fins and are easy to catch. They average 5lbs (22") with some reaching 12lbs (28+"). Natural foods will not maintain such a fishery, so they have to supplemented.

2). 8 miles of wild trout stream that encompasses flat meadows, forest, a canyon, and beaver ponds. The brook trout in this water average about 8" with top brookies hitting around 14". The rainbows average about 13" with top fish around 18". The browns average about 13" too, but there are some over 20" (3+lbs). There are three over 25" (6+lbs).

#1 is easy to make, relatively easy to maintain, easily drawing paying "anglers" virtually guaranteed BIG fish. Don't forget your camera!

In #2 novice anglers would be hard pressed to have much real success on. Success here requires knowledge, understanding, skill, and ingenuity. It's riches are just not easy to realize.

Which would you find most satisfying, after the first day? After the 10th day? After that?

[NorCalFishinguru]

That wasn't the best example. But my point is, if bigger is always better, why would you fish for any species other than the biggest one in your area?

It can be just as fun to catch a 15 lb. red as a 40 lb. King as long as you are using gear that is scaled for the size of the fish you are going after.

You have a good point!

For me it's the technique, I want the biggest on the lightest spinning or fly(kings are bait and wait, not my desired way of fishing).

Exactly. For me it's technique too. And all types of fish and fishing offer challenges. Beyond that,or maybe beneath it, lies my intense and unabashed love for the natural world, which I cannot find in a fish farm -going back to the original post.

In keeping with the original post--You have a choice to fish:

1). A 50acre man-made pond regularly stocked with factory rainbow trout. They have warped fins and are easy to catch. They average 5lbs (22") with some reaching 12lbs (28+"). Natural foods will not maintain such a fishery, so they have to supplemented.

2). 8 miles of wild trout stream that encompasses flat meadows, forest, a canyon, and beaver ponds. The brook trout in this water average about 8" with top brookies hitting around 14". The rainbows average about 13" with top fish around 18". The browns average about 13" too, but there are some over 20" (3+lbs). There are three over 25" (6+lbs).

#1 is easy to make, relatively easy to maintain, easily drawing paying "anglers" virtually guaranteed BIG fish. Don't forget your camera!

In #2 novice anglers would be hard pressed to have much real success on. Success here requires knowledge, understanding, skill, and ingenuity. It's riches are just not easy to realize.

Which would you find most satisfying, after the first day? After the 10th day? After that?

My sentiments exactly. Ive trout fished other waters like eagle lake where the trout also grow big, but are wild. I dont mind studying the baitfish patterns, water temperature, seasonal migration of the fish, oxygen levels, and the whole list of factors that go into a successful day on the water because when all is said and done it makes it that much more rewarding.

[bilgerat]

I have just as much fun catching aggressive bluegills and crappie on ultralite as I do catching bass and pickeral. There's always that sweet time of year around here when the 'bull' gills come out to play. These are freakishly large and full of attitude. They will nail plugs and topwaters like a torpedo. They fight pound for pound better than a bass.

I don't even fish for bass when this time comes.

[Redlinerobert]

Depends on mood and location for me.  Sometimes I'm happy catching 40 bass to 5 lbs.  Other times I'm looking for that double digit fish.

Also depends on species.  If I'm after stripers or peacocks, bigger is definitely better.

[Dalton Tam]

I disagree that bigger is better when you are catching fished that were raised up on fish feed and biological help to make them grow bigger. Ofcourse its great to catch them... but you just dont get that satisfaction of goin through all the trouble of finding them in a lake or river. It's kinna like these big deer hunters on tv. I would take my Eight point trophy that I worked hard hunting in the woods for over a big 12 point killed off a ranch that they have been feeding at the same time every day in the same place so that the guides know exactly where to put you. It defeats the purpose of the sport.... That's why its called "Hunting, not "Killing" and "Fishing" not "Catching"

[Chaz Hickcox]

What ever happened to just fishing because you enjoy it?  Bigger is a better story, but overall fish are fish and the challenge of putting them in the boat is all the fun.  I will say that I don't fish for white perch, brim or crappie because they're too easy.  However, when my little girl caught her first bluegill last spring, too easy is a load of crap.  She had a ball with that, and so did I.  I guess in the end, if your not in a tournament then what does it matter? 

[firefightn15]

I wouldn't walk across the street for a stocked pond for the purpose of catch and pay, but if it were a pond that was casually stocked I think it would be fun.  Occasionally I come home with much more to talk about than the big fish I caught; being on the lake or walking the river bank gives you more than you'll ever find fishing something that is manipulated to that extreme.

As said above, an ultralite and a mad bluegill can be the fight of your life.

[Bass_Akwards]

To say "bigger isn't better" is the craziest thing I've ever heard.

If you're one of those guys/girls who says he/she would rather just catch as many fish as you can on any given day, compared to catching weight, I tend not to believe you.

Let's say after fishing 6 hours in a day, you catch 37 bass in the 1-2 pound class, then in the last 5 minutes of the day you catch a 13 pounder. You're telling me that when you go home you're gunna feel more exited about catching the 37 than you are about the 13 pounder? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. People who say numbers are better than weight are just saying that to be different or get attention IMO.

Millions of people catch good numbers every day, but only a select few, are nabbing the biggest fish in their respective ponds/lakes/steams/rivers on a regular basis. that's because over the long haul, catching bigger bass is a much bigger challenge than catching MORE bass IMO..

Why get into something, whether it's chess, poker, football, or fishing if you're not going to want to be challenged? The biggest challenge, and the biggest feeling of self achievment in fishing, is catching the monsters. Period.  Is catching 100 fish in 8 hours super fun?  Duh!  Of course it is.  It's about as much fun as you can have in a day. But I'd rather catch a lake or state record this spring, than catch the "most fish I've ever caught' at the same lake.

[Jake.]

The biggest challenge, and the biggest feeling of self achievment in fishing, is catching the monsters. Period.

I disagree. I feel like I've accomplished something more when I catch a 18" wild Brown Trout, in its natural habitat, than when I catch some genetically mutated 5 lb. Rainbow trout in a stocked pond. And trust me, the wild Brown Trout is much more challenging.

I do agree that in bass fishing bigger is always better, but that isn't the case with every species.