Catch and Release

[BadBassWV]

I was thinking over the winter months to try and find out if it is possible to have a small lake that I fish to be designated as catch and release for large mouth bass. In the past I have noticed alot of people bank fishing taking buckets of large mouth out of the lake. This makes me cringe every time I go by and see buckets of smaller bass being taken out for food. There are alot of Crappie and Bluegill that could be caught for food consumption. Just wanted to get some input from you guys and gals, Am I wasting my time? Is it better for the lake to have some of the smaller bass to be taken out? The lake is only about 100 acres or so and is one of the few lakes we have around here to bass fish. I have caught and released several bass in the 6 to 7lb range and seen others that were bigger. I have already emailed state DNR and waiting a response. Any input would be helpful.

[J Francho]

Go ahead and write your letters, but you'll need to do some research and come up with solid evidence for your case.  And that probably won't be enough.  The fact that there are bigger fish in there probably means that the shore anglers aren't making a dent in the large bass population.  Most of the shore anglers I see are simply fishing for dinner.  They're fishing shallow, and probably won't encounter anything other than barely legal keeper bass and sunnies.  Yeah, they may score a lunker, but they're far and few between.  Your best bet is to encourage voluntary release of the big ones.  Explain to them th reason there are so many small ones is that 99% of the bass don't make it past 3 lbs.  Anything over 5 lbs. is one in many thousands.  Those 7 lb.+ hogs are one in a million.

[senile1]

Go ahead and write your letters, but you'll need to do some research and come up with solid evidence for your case. And that probably won't be enough. The fact that there are bigger fish in there probably means that the shore anglers aren't making a dent in the large bass population. Most of the shore anglers I see are simply fishing for dinner. They're fishing shallow, and probably won't encounter anything other than barely legal keeper bass and sunnies. Yeah, they may score a lunker, but they're far and few between. Your best bet is to encourage voluntary release of the big ones. Explain to them th reason there are so many small ones is that 99% of the bass don't make it past 3 lbs. Anything over 5 lbs. is one in many thousands. Those 7 lb.+ hogs are one in a million.

I agree with J Francho. Without a study you don't know if making the lake a C & R lake will help the population or ruin it. Taking a percentage of the small ones for food could be the best thing for that lake.

The fact that you are catching large healthy fish would seem to indicate that the population may be fine. If your conservation department is anything like Missouri's I suspect they already have that data collected.

[Grey Wolf]

You're probably spinning your wheels .

[SirSnookalot]

If the people are taking the fish legally they would have the same rights as any sport fisherman.  If they not taking them legally then I think more than 1 complaint would be needed for investigation.  Given budget cuts in most states I doubt they have the manpower to deal with a 100 acre lake and given the state of the economy may favor dinner over pleasure.

[fishfordollars]

Without a case study and verifiable studies you are wasting your time.

As far as the shore fishermen, they have a legal right to take a legal limit from the lake every day. You might get someone to do a license check on them occasionally, but that's about it.

[Glenn]

From your description, it sounds like the lake is quite healthy and has a balanced population.  Apparently the removal of the smaller bass is working.  Don't mess with a good thing!

[BadBassWV]

Thanks everyone for the response. I see what your saying, Its probably better for the lake to have some smaller ones taken out every now and then. Still makes me cringe to watch it tho.

[Nibbles]

Thanks everyone for the response. I see what your saying, Its probably better for the lake to have some smaller ones taken out every now and then. Still makes me cringe to watch it tho.

Think of it this way - if the small ones don't get taken out, they eat up all the food and the big ones starve. Small bass are almost always more aggressive feeders than large ones.

I think pulling out a big bass that should weigh 6 pounds with a sunken belly and an actual weight of only 4 pound would make you cringe even more wouldn't it?

[RoLo]

Mother Nature is the best steward of planet Earth.

Bass populations tend to balance themselves,

in fact, man has typically been the biggest offender,

where no management is often the best management.

Bottom Line: If anglers were causing any harm to this lake,

the lake would not be giving up buckets of bass. Conversely,

when bass become difficult to catch, the anglers will melt away.

Roger

[Randall]

I say leave it alone. The best lakes I fish have people taking out small fish. They are probably doing you a favor unless you like catching a lot of small fish.

[aarogb]

From your description, it sounds like the lake is quite healthy and has a balanced population. Apparently the removal of the smaller bass is working. Don't mess with a good thing!

X2.

[Juicy Joyce]

Do it BadBassWV!!

Catch and release is so important! When you put them back they have the chance to grow bigger!! Besides that... like you said there are plenty of Crappie and Bluegill to go around.

I think you will have a lot of supporters in this. Good luck!

Juicy Joyce over and out.

[Bassin_Fin@tic]

Thanks everyone for the response. I see what your saying, Its probably better for the lake to have some smaller ones taken out every now and then. Still makes me cringe to watch it tho.

It's gonna make you cringe a lot more when you see some numbnut carrying off a 5- 7lber out of a small body of water than several smaller keepers though. Those are ususally the same people that turn around and complain "what happened to the bite" and "where did all the fish go" :

[WRB]

Mother Nature is the best steward of planet Earth.

Bass populations tend to balance themselves,

in fact, man has typically been the biggest offender,

where no management is often the best management.

Bottom Line: If anglers were causing any harm to this lake,

the lake would not be giving up buckets of bass. Conversely,

when bass become difficult to catch, the anglers will melt away.

Roger

+1

This logic may at first seem illogical, Roger is right on target.

Consider this; would you like to fish a unmanaged lake with a good bass population that has never been fished before?

WRB

[Flipsk828]

Well think about it. Those 6 or 7 pounders were once those little 12 inchers. Your not wasting your time. I'm right there with you.

[trevor]

I don't get why people even eat bass. Eat catfish or bluegill or crappie or perch or another "food" fish. But why eat bass? I have always understood that they are not the best tasting fish.

[BadBassWV]

I used to live in florida and was a member of a hunting camp, it had three 4 to 6 acre lakes on it. I was the only one that fished these lakes, all the other members were hunters. I never once took a bass out of the lakes, it was not uncommon to catch 2 to 3 eight pounders in a day of fishing. I just think nature takes care of itself, humans mess things up. Leave them bass in the Lake dangit.

[K_Mac]

http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-videos/bass-fishing-fish-biology.html

This topic comes up regularly. The link above addresses the idea that catch and release is always the best solution to lake management. It is not. Controlled harvest can improve the size and numbers of bass in many lakes. My home lake has a huge population of bass, and the best potential for a trophy fish in the area. The DNR encourages keeping small fish, and I do keep a few ~12" fish a couple of times a year for the table. On most lakes I don't even consider keeping bass, but there are times when it is the right thing to do.

The idea that nature will take care of balancing things out on a lake is valid, it just doesn't always do so in a way that we like. I know the owner of a couple of lakes that are very rarely fished. 25 years ago both lakes were full of large bluegill and bass. Bass have always been released. These lakes are now full of small bluegill and tiny bass. Controlled harvest could have kept these lakes far healthier.

[WRB]

Myths; all bass caught and released live. When you catch a bass the odds of it serviving the event are about 1 out of 10 die as a direct result.

Bass; largemouth black bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass make up the vast majority of "bass" caught by recreational anglers. The above bass are good eating, depending on the quality of the the water and prey they are eating.

If a small lake, 10 acres or so, has a balanced ecosystems, prey to predator ratio, they lake should stay within a margin of balance depending of several factors; water level, good recruitment/nursery areas to support spawning and survival, adequate prey for the predators.

The wild card is man; what we do impacts everything and tends to upset the balance of nature.

Selective harvest is the right thing to do and that means harvesting prey and predators to maintain balance within high & low cycles, good years and bad years.

WRB

[CoBass]

In order for selective harvest to work, it truly has to be selective. I've seen plenty of people who keep literally every fish they catch whether it's a 3" bluegill or a 5 lb bass they all go on the stringer. Too much removal on either end of the food chain can really harm a body of water especially smaller lakes and ponds. Just my two cents worth.

[BadBassWV]

Just wondering, If you had a choice of fishing a lake with selective harvest/watching stringers of bass being taken out, or A Lake where all the bass were Caught and Released, Which would you choose?

[Catt]

In order for selective harvest to work, it truly has to be selective. I've seen plenty of people who keep literally every fish they catch whether it's a 3" bluegill or a 5 lb bass they all go on the stringer. Too much removal on either end of the food chain can really harm a body of water especially smaller lakes and ponds. Just my two cents worth.

That's not selective harvesting

Based off what I've read here not many people understand catch & release, selective harvesting, or lake management.

In the video linked by K-Mac these questions and more are answered by the nations top warm water lake manager, Bob Lusk.

[K_Mac]

Just wondering, If you had a choice of fishing a lake with selective harvest/watching stringers of bass being taken out, or A Lake where all the bass were Caught and Released, Which would you choose?

When I'm fishing my home lake and someone tells me they have a few short fish in the live-well, it doesn't bother me at all. The lake is healthy and fishing is good. One fish over 18" is allowed on the lake, and when someone tells me they have one over in the live-well I don't much like it, but they have every right to do it. If over-harvesting becomes an issue I will campaign aggressively to stop it.

To directly answer the question I would prefer to fish a healthy C&R lake for bass. Most of us would, but I am not offended by people who keep smaller bass, unless it is hurting the fishery. Even if it is, lakes cycle and people eat fish. Life is too short to be angry at people who legally keep fish on public lakes IMO.

[Catt]

Minimum length limits or slot limits are examples of selective harvesting, theses lakes are generally healthier that catch and release only lakes.

Lakes like Amistad, Fork, Falcon, Sam Rayburn, Toledo Bend and others did not become that productive by catch and release. Fish stockings along with harvest regulations have been the primary techniques used by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department biologists to improve or maintain fishing quality.