Re: Keeper bass

[Andrew Kidd]

"alwaysfishking" > wrote in message
...
> While I have not kept track of hours on the lake I have 429 bass this
> year.
> I have no idea how many were dinks but I gotta say that a majority were 12
> inchs or better. I am definetly not one to compare to. I have a very
> unfair
> advantage in the lakes here and the amount of time I can fish. My average
> size bass this year would be about 2 pounds +, I plan on keeping more
> detailed logs next year. like baits and time spent. One thing I won't
> track
> is money spent :-)
>

If we had a 12" limit, I'm sure my percent would be a lot higher. But we
don't. Not like it really matters. I enjoy catching them to just about any
size. I would like ot have a few larger ones this year, though. I think my
largest is just over 4lb this year.

I used to keep a really detailed log. I think I got so detailed, it became
a hassle, and I gave up on it. I'm just really hitting the high points on
this log.
--
Andrew Kidd
http://www.amiasoft.com/ - Software for the rest of us!
http://www.rofb.net/ - ROFB Newsgroup Home

[go-bassn]

Not to open up the "dinks are wothless" thread again, but I only keep count
of keeper bass in my logs. I know I've caught more dinks than keepers
overall too Andrew.

The thing that I can be proud of is that I've averaged far more than a
5-fish limit of keepers for every day I've fished this year. In my book
that's the most important factor. The total number of fish is
inconsequential to me.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Andrew Kidd" > wrote in message
news:WupYc.65784$9d6.50346@attbi_s54...
> "alwaysfishking" > wrote in message
> ...
> > While I have not kept track of hours on the lake I have 429 bass this
> > year.
> > I have no idea how many were dinks but I gotta say that a majority were
12
> > inchs or better. I am definetly not one to compare to. I have a very
> > unfair
> > advantage in the lakes here and the amount of time I can fish. My
average
> > size bass this year would be about 2 pounds +, I plan on keeping more
> > detailed logs next year. like baits and time spent. One thing I won't
> > track
> > is money spent :-)
> >
>
> If we had a 12" limit, I'm sure my percent would be a lot higher. But we
> don't. Not like it really matters. I enjoy catching them to just about
any
> size. I would like ot have a few larger ones this year, though. I think
my
> largest is just over 4lb this year.
>
> I used to keep a really detailed log. I think I got so detailed, it
became
> a hassle, and I gave up on it. I'm just really hitting the high points on
> this log.
> --
> Andrew Kidd
> http://www.amiasoft.com/ - Software for the rest of us!
> http://www.rofb.net/ - ROFB Newsgroup Home
>
>

[go-bassn]

I say turn em all loose.

You're extracting some good info from your records Andrew. Maybe some that
you never intended them to reveal. Now you know which lakes offer you the
best chance at bigger bass, and which ones you're more apt not to. That is
cool. 1/35 is not good, I'd be fishing some other lake.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Andrew Kidd" > wrote in message
news:XYoYc.80969$Fg5.2697@attbi_s53...
> "IMKen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So why with everybody practicing C&R is this true. Should be more big
> > fish. Perhaps it will happen in a couple years as all these smallies
grow
> > up. maybe there are just too many small fish and some need to see the
> > frying pan?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Ken
> >
>
>
> Interesting thoughts. I'd had these myself too, except at one of the
> closest lakes (pond) to me, I'm 19/36, for over 50%. TI used to have a
lot
> of small fish. In another, I'm 1/35. I don't even want to caluclate the
> percent on that one, although I've had fun both times out to that lake
this
> year. It's been like that for years, even after a slot limit of 12-15
> during the last several years. You'd think they'd eventually grow bigger.
>
> I just don't think people were taking out the 12" and less bass. I know I
> wasn't. Unfortunately, I'm a little lazy when it comes to the cleaning
fish
> part. If I want fish, I typically go out to eat! :-)
> --
> Andrew Kidd
> http://www.amiasoft.com/ - Software for the rest of us!
> http://www.rofb.net/ - ROFB Newsgroup Home
>
>

[RGarri7470]

>So why with everybody practicing C&R is this true.

because we are making them smart and much harder to catch
Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

[RGarri7470]

>I say turn em all loose.
>

on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

[go-bassn]

I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake is
99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
solving it.

Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
levels, that's my belief at least.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"RGarri7470" > wrote in message
...
> >I say turn em all loose.
> >
>
> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> Ronnie
>
> http://fishing.about.com

[go-bassn]

I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake is
99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
solving it.

Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
levels, that's my belief at least.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"RGarri7470" > wrote in message
...
> >I say turn em all loose.
> >
>
> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> Ronnie
>
> http://fishing.about.com

[RGarri7470]

>I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake is
>99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
>The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
>enough to eat.

And one reason they don't have enough to eat is there are too many of them.
Remove enough of the small bass that are eating up all the small baitfish and
that allows more baitfish, and more food for the remaining bass, helping to
correct the imbalance. Other than feeding them, I don't know how else to
correct the problem of too little food for too many bass.
Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

[RGarri7470]

>I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake is
>99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
>The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
>enough to eat.

And one reason they don't have enough to eat is there are too many of them.
Remove enough of the small bass that are eating up all the small baitfish and
that allows more baitfish, and more food for the remaining bass, helping to
correct the imbalance. Other than feeding them, I don't know how else to
correct the problem of too little food for too many bass.
Ronnie

http://fishing.about.com

[Shawn]

Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount of
food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length and
weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the same
amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
ultimately larger.

You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to be
removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the removal
needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
to a more balanced situation.

Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest" and
a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in most
situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the Black
Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their research
and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
has since been published on bass biology and management practices that came
from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of North
America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
populations because of limited food resource availability.

I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
management lessons ......

Shawn
n


"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
is
> 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
> The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
> It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
> solving it.
>
> Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> levels, that's my belief at least.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I say turn em all loose.
> > >
> >
> > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> > Ronnie
> >
> > http://fishing.about.com
>
>

[Shawn]

Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount of
food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length and
weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the same
amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
ultimately larger.

You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to be
removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the removal
needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
to a more balanced situation.

Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest" and
a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in most
situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the Black
Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their research
and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
has since been published on bass biology and management practices that came
from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of North
America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
populations because of limited food resource availability.

I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
management lessons ......

Shawn
n


"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
is
> 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
> The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
> It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
> solving it.
>
> Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> levels, that's my belief at least.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >I say turn em all loose.
> > >
> >
> > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> > Ronnie
> >
> > http://fishing.about.com
>
>

[alwaysfishking]

Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
here. Let me see if that has any effect


"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
> fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
> bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount
of
> food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
> get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
> Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
and
> weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
same
> amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> ultimately larger.
>
> You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
be
> removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
> small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
removal
> needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
> to a more balanced situation.
>
> Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
and
> a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
most
> situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
Black
> Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
> and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
> biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
research
> and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
> has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
came
> from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>
> I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
> management lessons ......
>
> Shawn
> n
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > >
> > >
> > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
bass.
> > > Ronnie
> > >
> > > http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>

[alwaysfishking]

Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
here. Let me see if that has any effect


"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
> fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
> bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount
of
> food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
> get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
> Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
and
> weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
same
> amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> ultimately larger.
>
> You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
be
> removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
> small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
removal
> needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
> to a more balanced situation.
>
> Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
and
> a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
most
> situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
Black
> Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
> and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
> biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
research
> and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
> has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
came
> from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>
> I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
> management lessons ......
>
> Shawn
> n
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > >
> > >
> > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
bass.
> > > Ronnie
> > >
> > > http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Christopher P. Cericola]

"alwaysfishking" > wrote in message
...
< Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
here. Let me see if that has any effect >

Save me some. I wanna take some home next time.

Christopher

[Christopher P. Cericola]

"alwaysfishking" > wrote in message
...
< Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
here. Let me see if that has any effect >

Save me some. I wanna take some home next time.

Christopher

[go-bassn]

Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in rofb.
My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry III
final lol.

Hear me out on this...

Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the remaining
prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators. I'm
in no way denying it.

But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as bass
fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the root
of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that, viewing
the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as the
result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the population
of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.

Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"

I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these waters.
The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded with
baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy bass.
Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
ecostystems.

Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
> fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
> bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount
of
> food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
> get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
> Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
and
> weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
same
> amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> ultimately larger.
>
> You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
be
> removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
> small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
removal
> needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
> to a more balanced situation.
>
> Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
and
> a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
most
> situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
Black
> Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
> and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
> biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
research
> and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
> has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
came
> from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>
> I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
> management lessons ......
>
> Shawn
> n
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > >
> > >
> > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
bass.
> > > Ronnie
> > >
> > > http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>

[go-bassn]

Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in rofb.
My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry III
final lol.

Hear me out on this...

Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the remaining
prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators. I'm
in no way denying it.

But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as bass
fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the root
of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that, viewing
the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as the
result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the population
of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.

Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"

I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these waters.
The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded with
baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy bass.
Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
ecostystems.

Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote. "Stunted
> fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing small
> bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited amount
of
> food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will only
> get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to grow.
> Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
and
> weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
same
> amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> ultimately larger.
>
> You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
be
> removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish and
> small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
removal
> needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water body
> to a more balanced situation.
>
> Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
and
> a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
most
> situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
Black
> Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries Society
> and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass researchers,
> biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
research
> and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text book
> has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
came
> from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>
> I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology and
> management lessons ......
>
> Shawn
> n
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > >
> > >
> > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
bass.
> > > Ronnie
> > >
> > > http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Rodney]

alwaysfishking wrote:
> Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
> here. Let me see if that has any effect


No doubt that will help (the bass) in a small pond

What Warren fails to see,, in a limited amount of water, just so much
biological can grow, or even be maintained, when the top predator is
over populated, there is nothing else that can help the biology of the
lake, but the removal of a percentage of them, you can't just add more
food fish (bream or shad), you run out of O2, and food for them

The Balance that Warren is thinking about,, is forgetting one thing,
each year the number of bass increase, if they didn't, perhaps you could
increase their food supply some, and have a balance. but then you have
bigger bass needing even more food,, you just have to remove some,,
they populate faster than they die from natural causes.

The ponds down here can sustain 200 lbs of bass per acre, that can be
200, 1 pounders, or 20, 10 ponders, but they always contain all sizes,
but the total never exceeds 200 lbs because 1 acre of water can only
supply the food for 200 lbs of bass, and that is a perfectly mixed
species lake.

They tell us to remove every fish caught under two lbs, of course this
is on a lake where it is over 5 years since it has been stocked

Ponds up north, I'm sure can't keep 200 ponds supported


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[Rodney]

alwaysfishking wrote:
> Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll lake
> here. Let me see if that has any effect


No doubt that will help (the bass) in a small pond

What Warren fails to see,, in a limited amount of water, just so much
biological can grow, or even be maintained, when the top predator is
over populated, there is nothing else that can help the biology of the
lake, but the removal of a percentage of them, you can't just add more
food fish (bream or shad), you run out of O2, and food for them

The Balance that Warren is thinking about,, is forgetting one thing,
each year the number of bass increase, if they didn't, perhaps you could
increase their food supply some, and have a balance. but then you have
bigger bass needing even more food,, you just have to remove some,,
they populate faster than they die from natural causes.

The ponds down here can sustain 200 lbs of bass per acre, that can be
200, 1 pounders, or 20, 10 ponders, but they always contain all sizes,
but the total never exceeds 200 lbs because 1 acre of water can only
supply the food for 200 lbs of bass, and that is a perfectly mixed
species lake.

They tell us to remove every fish caught under two lbs, of course this
is on a lake where it is over 5 years since it has been stocked

Ponds up north, I'm sure can't keep 200 ponds supported


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[[email protected]]

Each year I keep track of my largemouth, smallies, & toothie critters.
So far this year it's 303, 37, & 21. I dont keep count of keepers,
maybe i'l start next year.

[go-bassn]

Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run the
thread?

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Rodney" .> wrote in message
...
> alwaysfishking wrote:
> > Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll
lake
> > here. Let me see if that has any effect
>
>
> No doubt that will help (the bass) in a small pond
>
> What Warren fails to see,, in a limited amount of water, just so much
> biological can grow, or even be maintained, when the top predator is
> over populated, there is nothing else that can help the biology of the
> lake, but the removal of a percentage of them, you can't just add more
> food fish (bream or shad), you run out of O2, and food for them
>
> The Balance that Warren is thinking about,, is forgetting one thing,
> each year the number of bass increase, if they didn't, perhaps you could
> increase their food supply some, and have a balance. but then you have
> bigger bass needing even more food,, you just have to remove some,,
> they populate faster than they die from natural causes.
>
> The ponds down here can sustain 200 lbs of bass per acre, that can be
> 200, 1 pounders, or 20, 10 ponders, but they always contain all sizes,
> but the total never exceeds 200 lbs because 1 acre of water can only
> supply the food for 200 lbs of bass, and that is a perfectly mixed
> species lake.
>
> They tell us to remove every fish caught under two lbs, of course this
> is on a lake where it is over 5 years since it has been stocked
>
> Ponds up north, I'm sure can't keep 200 ponds supported
>
>
> --
> Rodney Long,
> Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
> Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
> Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
> and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com
>

[go-bassn]

Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run the
thread?

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Rodney" .> wrote in message
...
> alwaysfishking wrote:
> > Ok i'm sticking with the kill all the stinking pickerel in the samll
lake
> > here. Let me see if that has any effect
>
>
> No doubt that will help (the bass) in a small pond
>
> What Warren fails to see,, in a limited amount of water, just so much
> biological can grow, or even be maintained, when the top predator is
> over populated, there is nothing else that can help the biology of the
> lake, but the removal of a percentage of them, you can't just add more
> food fish (bream or shad), you run out of O2, and food for them
>
> The Balance that Warren is thinking about,, is forgetting one thing,
> each year the number of bass increase, if they didn't, perhaps you could
> increase their food supply some, and have a balance. but then you have
> bigger bass needing even more food,, you just have to remove some,,
> they populate faster than they die from natural causes.
>
> The ponds down here can sustain 200 lbs of bass per acre, that can be
> 200, 1 pounders, or 20, 10 ponders, but they always contain all sizes,
> but the total never exceeds 200 lbs because 1 acre of water can only
> supply the food for 200 lbs of bass, and that is a perfectly mixed
> species lake.
>
> They tell us to remove every fish caught under two lbs, of course this
> is on a lake where it is over 5 years since it has been stocked
>
> Ponds up north, I'm sure can't keep 200 ponds supported
>
>
> --
> Rodney Long,
> Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
> Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
> Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
> and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com
>

[Rodney]

go-bassn wrote:

> Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run the
> thread?

Gee Warren, about a mouth or two ago,, you said "you knew" what you were
talking about, when I'm the one who "first" told everyone to remove
dinks, (from small impoundment's) and you called me a fool.

I told the group an algae bloom could deplete O2, and cause a shad kill
you called me a fool again, that algae just produce O2, you failed to
recognize they use more O2 than produce when the sun is blocked by
clouds, and do indeed cause fish kills (that's the reason we have
aerators on small ponds, especially when we have them stocked with fish
to the O2, use limit).

Everyone here read those threads, now all of a sudden, your finally are
convinced that removal of dinks is necessary, but I still don't know
anything.

All of those threads is still on the board for anyone to review

For the life of me I can't figure you out.

WEll just keep slamming me, your only hurting yourself, every time you
do it.

I would rather we be friends, after all, I am in a position where I
could even possibly help you. This bickering is childish.

You don't know everything about fishing, and I don't know everything
about fishing, but when I post something as fact, you can take it to the
bank, I can back it up, or I would not post it. I'm not going to mislead
anyone.

Now if someone can prove me wrong,, I will admit it,, that I screwed up,
it happens to most people, their mind just can't recall what they
thought it could, what's the big deal, nothing wrong, with being wrong

Sometimes I might post something that I qualify as "I remember, I think
I read somewhere, or I believe" these post are looking for proof, either
right, or wrong. I would rather have the true facts than just "think"
I'm right.

Well the ball's in your court, you can be a real man,, or just keep
playing these childish games
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[Rodney]

go-bassn wrote:

> Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run the
> thread?

Gee Warren, about a mouth or two ago,, you said "you knew" what you were
talking about, when I'm the one who "first" told everyone to remove
dinks, (from small impoundment's) and you called me a fool.

I told the group an algae bloom could deplete O2, and cause a shad kill
you called me a fool again, that algae just produce O2, you failed to
recognize they use more O2 than produce when the sun is blocked by
clouds, and do indeed cause fish kills (that's the reason we have
aerators on small ponds, especially when we have them stocked with fish
to the O2, use limit).

Everyone here read those threads, now all of a sudden, your finally are
convinced that removal of dinks is necessary, but I still don't know
anything.

All of those threads is still on the board for anyone to review

For the life of me I can't figure you out.

WEll just keep slamming me, your only hurting yourself, every time you
do it.

I would rather we be friends, after all, I am in a position where I
could even possibly help you. This bickering is childish.

You don't know everything about fishing, and I don't know everything
about fishing, but when I post something as fact, you can take it to the
bank, I can back it up, or I would not post it. I'm not going to mislead
anyone.

Now if someone can prove me wrong,, I will admit it,, that I screwed up,
it happens to most people, their mind just can't recall what they
thought it could, what's the big deal, nothing wrong, with being wrong

Sometimes I might post something that I qualify as "I remember, I think
I read somewhere, or I believe" these post are looking for proof, either
right, or wrong. I would rather have the true facts than just "think"
I'm right.

Well the ball's in your court, you can be a real man,, or just keep
playing these childish games
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[go-bassn]

I'll make this easy on ya old fella, meet Al...

P-L-O-N-K

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Rodney" .> wrote in message
...
> go-bassn wrote:
>
> > Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run
the
> > thread?
>
> Gee Warren, about a mouth or two ago,, you said "you knew" what you were
> talking about, when I'm the one who "first" told everyone to remove
> dinks, (from small impoundment's) and you called me a fool.
>
> I told the group an algae bloom could deplete O2, and cause a shad kill
> you called me a fool again, that algae just produce O2, you failed to
> recognize they use more O2 than produce when the sun is blocked by
> clouds, and do indeed cause fish kills (that's the reason we have
> aerators on small ponds, especially when we have them stocked with fish
> to the O2, use limit).
>
> Everyone here read those threads, now all of a sudden, your finally are
> convinced that removal of dinks is necessary, but I still don't know
> anything.
>
> All of those threads is still on the board for anyone to review
>
> For the life of me I can't figure you out.
>
> WEll just keep slamming me, your only hurting yourself, every time you
> do it.
>
> I would rather we be friends, after all, I am in a position where I
> could even possibly help you. This bickering is childish.
>
> You don't know everything about fishing, and I don't know everything
> about fishing, but when I post something as fact, you can take it to the
> bank, I can back it up, or I would not post it. I'm not going to mislead
> anyone.
>
> Now if someone can prove me wrong,, I will admit it,, that I screwed up,
> it happens to most people, their mind just can't recall what they
> thought it could, what's the big deal, nothing wrong, with being wrong
>
> Sometimes I might post something that I qualify as "I remember, I think
> I read somewhere, or I believe" these post are looking for proof, either
> right, or wrong. I would rather have the true facts than just "think"
> I'm right.
>
> Well the ball's in your court, you can be a real man,, or just keep
> playing these childish games
> --
> Rodney Long,
> Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
> Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
> Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
> and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com
>

[go-bassn]

I'll make this easy on ya old fella, meet Al...

P-L-O-N-K

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Rodney" .> wrote in message
...
> go-bassn wrote:
>
> > Why don't you let the people that know what they're talking about run
the
> > thread?
>
> Gee Warren, about a mouth or two ago,, you said "you knew" what you were
> talking about, when I'm the one who "first" told everyone to remove
> dinks, (from small impoundment's) and you called me a fool.
>
> I told the group an algae bloom could deplete O2, and cause a shad kill
> you called me a fool again, that algae just produce O2, you failed to
> recognize they use more O2 than produce when the sun is blocked by
> clouds, and do indeed cause fish kills (that's the reason we have
> aerators on small ponds, especially when we have them stocked with fish
> to the O2, use limit).
>
> Everyone here read those threads, now all of a sudden, your finally are
> convinced that removal of dinks is necessary, but I still don't know
> anything.
>
> All of those threads is still on the board for anyone to review
>
> For the life of me I can't figure you out.
>
> WEll just keep slamming me, your only hurting yourself, every time you
> do it.
>
> I would rather we be friends, after all, I am in a position where I
> could even possibly help you. This bickering is childish.
>
> You don't know everything about fishing, and I don't know everything
> about fishing, but when I post something as fact, you can take it to the
> bank, I can back it up, or I would not post it. I'm not going to mislead
> anyone.
>
> Now if someone can prove me wrong,, I will admit it,, that I screwed up,
> it happens to most people, their mind just can't recall what they
> thought it could, what's the big deal, nothing wrong, with being wrong
>
> Sometimes I might post something that I qualify as "I remember, I think
> I read somewhere, or I believe" these post are looking for proof, either
> right, or wrong. I would rather have the true facts than just "think"
> I'm right.
>
> Well the ball's in your court, you can be a real man,, or just keep
> playing these childish games
> --
> Rodney Long,
> Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
> Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
> Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
> and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com
>

[Bob]

Must be married. See my post on getting hitched :-)

Cast far
Bob


"alwaysfishking" > wrote in message
...
> detailed logs next year. like baits and time spent. One thing I won't
track
> is money spent :-)
>

[Dwayne E. Cooper]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:57:38 -0400, "go-bassn" >
wrote:

>1/35 is not good, I'd be fishing some other lake.

That's easier to say if you live in Michigan. However, the
problem Andrew has is that he's fishing in one really, really tough
state. In fact, east of the Missiissippi...there is probably no state
(with the possible exception of Ohio and Rhode Island) worse to fish
larger bodies of water in than Indiana.

Thankfully, we do have good fishing in our farm ponds, strip
pits, gravel pits, washouts, creeks and in some of our many rivers...

My keeper to non-keeper ratio is always dependent upon where I'm
fishing and I've learned to adjust my expectations depending upon the
water (and conditions) that I'm fishing.

If I'm fishing lake Monroe (Indiana's largest lake) right
now...I know that 3 nice keepers (approx. 10 pounds) will likely walk
away with a major tournament being held there this time of year. And
it very well could be 2 nice keepers...

I remember fishing a Federation Classic back in the late 80s on
Patoka (Indiana's 2nd biggest lake and probably our best big body of
water right now...unless you count the Ohio River) and catching well
over a hundred non-keeper bass each day...with not 1 keeper! 3
keepers (not huge ones either) won it and the majority of guys blanked
both days! I remember going in that tournament with an expectation of
probably around 100 keepers a day thinking that if I caught that many
keepers...surely 1 of those hundred bass each day would be a keeper
AND thinking that of 200 hundred bass...I had a decent chance of
catching a 6-7 pounder that would put me over the top...

Now compare that to the small lake I live on (15 acre subdivision
lake built about 10 years ago): I take my 21 month old boy fishing on
it about every day and after catching hundreds of bass on her this
year...I could count the number of non-keeper bass my son and I have
caught this year on one hand!

--
Dwayne E. Cooper, Atty at Law
Indianapolis, IN
Email:
Web Page: http://www.cooperlegalservices.com
Personal Fishing Web Page: http://www.hoosierwebsites.com/OnTheWater
Favorite Fishing Web Page: http://www.hoosiertradingpost.com/FishingTackle
1st Annual ROFB Classic Winner

[alwaysfishking]

Interesting Warren, that seems to be the case for the lake I have been
fishing recently. Little to no harvest and yet seems to sustain a good
amount of quality fish. (4-6 pounders), another lake here which is rather
small does not. Despite the fact that there is little to no harvest, the
fish seem to top out at 2.5-3 lbs. Pickerel on the other hand have been
taken out at 6 lbs with the average in the 2 pound range. There are
litterally no crappie left (last one I caught was almost two years ago). I
think this lake needs some pickerel removal IMO, What do you think?


"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in rofb.
> My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
> field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry
III
> final lol.
>
> Hear me out on this...
>
> Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the remaining
> prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators. I'm
> in no way denying it.
>
> But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as
bass
> fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the
root
> of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that,
viewing
> the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as
the
> result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the population
> of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.
>
> Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
> saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"
>
> I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
> species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these
waters.
> The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded with
> baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
> Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy
bass.
> Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
> ecostystems.
>
> Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> > removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote.
"Stunted
> > fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing
small
> > bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited
amount
> of
> > food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will
only
> > get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to
grow.
> > Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> > alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> > metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
> and
> > weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
> same
> > amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> > ultimately larger.
> >
> > You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> > With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
> be
> > removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> > remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish
and
> > small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
> removal
> > needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water
body
> > to a more balanced situation.
> >
> > Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
> and
> > a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
> most
> > situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> > species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> > warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> > management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
> Black
> > Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries
Society
> > and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass
researchers,
> > biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
> research
> > and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text
book
> > has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
> came
> > from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> > presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
> North
> > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
opposite
> > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting
in
> > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> >
> > I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology
and
> > management lessons ......
> >
> > Shawn
> > n
> >
> >
> > "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any
lake
> > is
> > > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
> ecosystem.
> > > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
> fix;
> > > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
> on
> > > solving it.
> > >
> > > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > > levels, that's my belief at least.
> > >
> > > Warren
> > > --
> > > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
> bass.
> > > > Ronnie
> > > >
> > > > http://fishing.about.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[IMKen]

I live and fish in an unusual environment. here on Kauai bass fishing is
limited to few reservoirs that are open to the public. Several years back
I discovered a small hidden reservoir that had not been fished in over ten
years. I began packing in there a couple times a week. it was really cool
to be able to flip a lure out and catch a LM on every other cast. Most were
about 1 pound with a rare 2 pounder every now and then. Any day would
produce 8 to ten bass in an hour.
Bait fish were rarely seen. I would every now and then see a small tilapia
or bluegill but not often. I believe they were just eaten as fast as they
were spawned.

I began taking a few bass for the frying pan every trip in. I took out 60
bass around a pound each over a 6 month period. I still was able to get
plenty of action even though this water was little over 100 feet wide by 600
feet long and 8 feet deep. It was not long before we started catching some
larger fish. By the second year of culling the small fish we were catching
3 pounders on a regular basis. Action definitely slowed as we now were only
catching 2 to 3 bass per hour but nearly all were larger. Small bait fish
are now seen frequently so I can only think that it is because of the fewer
number of larger fish preying on them. That I feel is also one reason of a
lower catch, the remaining bass are not as hungry.

I think some culling of smaller fish where they are over abundant is proper
and healthy for good fishing.
No science, just personal observation of one case.

Ken


"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
> The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
> It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
> solving it.
>
> Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> levels, that's my belief at least.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >I say turn em all loose.
>> >
>>
>> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
>> Ronnie
>>
>> http://fishing.about.com
>
>

[IMKen]

I live and fish in an unusual environment. here on Kauai bass fishing is
limited to few reservoirs that are open to the public. Several years back
I discovered a small hidden reservoir that had not been fished in over ten
years. I began packing in there a couple times a week. it was really cool
to be able to flip a lure out and catch a LM on every other cast. Most were
about 1 pound with a rare 2 pounder every now and then. Any day would
produce 8 to ten bass in an hour.
Bait fish were rarely seen. I would every now and then see a small tilapia
or bluegill but not often. I believe they were just eaten as fast as they
were spawned.

I began taking a few bass for the frying pan every trip in. I took out 60
bass around a pound each over a 6 month period. I still was able to get
plenty of action even though this water was little over 100 feet wide by 600
feet long and 8 feet deep. It was not long before we started catching some
larger fish. By the second year of culling the small fish we were catching
3 pounders on a regular basis. Action definitely slowed as we now were only
catching 2 to 3 bass per hour but nearly all were larger. Small bait fish
are now seen frequently so I can only think that it is because of the fewer
number of larger fish preying on them. That I feel is also one reason of a
lower catch, the remaining bass are not as hungry.

I think some culling of smaller fish where they are over abundant is proper
and healthy for good fishing.
No science, just personal observation of one case.

Ken


"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> is
> 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's ecosystem.
> The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary fix;
> It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing on
> solving it.
>
> Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> levels, that's my belief at least.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >I say turn em all loose.
>> >
>>
>> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
>> Ronnie
>>
>> http://fishing.about.com
>
>

[Shawn]

Warren : Again, I can see some validity in what you are saying, but I also
see some problem areas in your theory. In some smaller lakes and ponds,
what you are saying that may be feasible. I guess I don't know where this
tread originated and which waterbody it was referring to - but in most cases
unfortunately, managing the forage base tends to be a little more
complicated than managing the larger predatory fish.

In most situations, the forage base, be it shiners, dace, minnows etc., are
mainly only limited by the amount of predatory pressure put on them. I know
of small ponds (I'm talking 1/2 an acre) that are just CHOCK full of golden
shiners. You throw a cast net and get hundreds and hundreds. There are no
predators in these ponds, save for the occasional great blue heron that
stops by. These species of fish can live just about anywhere, in any
conditions. There's not much limiting their populations except for direct
predation.

It gets a little more complicated when you start looking at bass-bluegill
communities, as even in the face of predation, bluegills can take over a
pond and ultimately become stunted themselves. In those cases, we must
manage for larger predators, and limit harvest of those predators.

Certain species of forage CAN be managed for, mainly by stocking, such as
smelt and shad, in order to increase the forage base for predators such as
bass. However, managers must be very careful in these situations,
especially when you consider native communities and natural balances, as
you've referred to before. In Vermont, someone took it upon themselves to
introduce alewives to a small 600-acre lake, thinking they'd be helping the
bass population in that lake. This is always dangerous when fisherman play
Johnny Appleseed with fish. They see the short term gains but don't
necessarily see the long term impacts. Alewives are a dangerous species in
landlocked situations. At first, fish like smallmouth and largemouth bass
can see some initial growth rate increases due to the sudden abundance of
food. That's what we call "individual level" changes. However, as years go
on, changes start occurring at the "population level". Alewives are
predators themselves. They just don't eat plankton like other species of
shad. They love fish eggs and fish fry, right after hatching. Alewives
reproduce fast and in great numbers. Soon there are hordes of alewives
roaming the shallows, increasing the mortality rates on bass eggs and baby
bass over what what already there from bluegill, pumpkinseeds etc. They
also compete with the young bass for food. For the first few months of
their lives, baby bass eat plankton. Study after study has shown that
alewives introduced into lakes can drastically deplete plankton abundance
and change the community. Basically, baby bass and every other fish in the
lake has a harder time finding food. Fish that are primarily planktivores
start to suffer. In this 600-acre lake in Vermont, within 5 years of
alewives getting put in there, there wasn't a smelt to be seen. The impacts
go on and on. Also - what the short-sighted fisherman neglected to realize
was that this particular lake flows directly into Lake Champlain. Now take
the problem and multiply it by 1,000. Alewives in Lake Champlain is a
disaster waiting to happen. I'm not talking about JUST bass. I'm a
fisheries biologist, not a bass biologist, so I research and manage all
species in Vermont. The walleye, lake trout, landlocked Atlantic salmon,
smelt, perch - all potentially could decline.

But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what is
known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input of
nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all the
big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like someon
said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or 20
ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.

So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what we
have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger fish
just makes the available food go around futher.

You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
consuming.

I've blabbed enough. Your turn.

Shawn



"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in rofb.
> My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
> field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry
III
> final lol.
>
> Hear me out on this...
>
> Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the remaining
> prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators. I'm
> in no way denying it.
>
> But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as
bass
> fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the
root
> of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that,
viewing
> the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as
the
> result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the population
> of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.
>
> Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
> saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"
>
> I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
> species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these
waters.
> The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded with
> baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
> Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy
bass.
> Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
> ecostystems.
>
> Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> > removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote.
"Stunted
> > fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing
small
> > bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited
amount
> of
> > food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will
only
> > get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to
grow.
> > Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> > alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> > metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
> and
> > weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
> same
> > amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> > ultimately larger.
> >
> > You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> > With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
> be
> > removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> > remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish
and
> > small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
> removal
> > needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water
body
> > to a more balanced situation.
> >
> > Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
> and
> > a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
> most
> > situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> > species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> > warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> > management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
> Black
> > Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries
Society
> > and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass
researchers,
> > biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
> research
> > and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text
book
> > has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
> came
> > from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> > presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
> North
> > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
opposite
> > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting
in
> > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> >
> > I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology
and
> > management lessons ......
> >
> > Shawn
> > n
> >
> >
> > "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any
lake
> > is
> > > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
> ecosystem.
> > > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
> fix;
> > > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
> on
> > > solving it.
> > >
> > > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > > levels, that's my belief at least.
> > >
> > > Warren
> > > --
> > > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
> bass.
> > > > Ronnie
> > > >
> > > > http://fishing.about.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Shawn]

Warren : Again, I can see some validity in what you are saying, but I also
see some problem areas in your theory. In some smaller lakes and ponds,
what you are saying that may be feasible. I guess I don't know where this
tread originated and which waterbody it was referring to - but in most cases
unfortunately, managing the forage base tends to be a little more
complicated than managing the larger predatory fish.

In most situations, the forage base, be it shiners, dace, minnows etc., are
mainly only limited by the amount of predatory pressure put on them. I know
of small ponds (I'm talking 1/2 an acre) that are just CHOCK full of golden
shiners. You throw a cast net and get hundreds and hundreds. There are no
predators in these ponds, save for the occasional great blue heron that
stops by. These species of fish can live just about anywhere, in any
conditions. There's not much limiting their populations except for direct
predation.

It gets a little more complicated when you start looking at bass-bluegill
communities, as even in the face of predation, bluegills can take over a
pond and ultimately become stunted themselves. In those cases, we must
manage for larger predators, and limit harvest of those predators.

Certain species of forage CAN be managed for, mainly by stocking, such as
smelt and shad, in order to increase the forage base for predators such as
bass. However, managers must be very careful in these situations,
especially when you consider native communities and natural balances, as
you've referred to before. In Vermont, someone took it upon themselves to
introduce alewives to a small 600-acre lake, thinking they'd be helping the
bass population in that lake. This is always dangerous when fisherman play
Johnny Appleseed with fish. They see the short term gains but don't
necessarily see the long term impacts. Alewives are a dangerous species in
landlocked situations. At first, fish like smallmouth and largemouth bass
can see some initial growth rate increases due to the sudden abundance of
food. That's what we call "individual level" changes. However, as years go
on, changes start occurring at the "population level". Alewives are
predators themselves. They just don't eat plankton like other species of
shad. They love fish eggs and fish fry, right after hatching. Alewives
reproduce fast and in great numbers. Soon there are hordes of alewives
roaming the shallows, increasing the mortality rates on bass eggs and baby
bass over what what already there from bluegill, pumpkinseeds etc. They
also compete with the young bass for food. For the first few months of
their lives, baby bass eat plankton. Study after study has shown that
alewives introduced into lakes can drastically deplete plankton abundance
and change the community. Basically, baby bass and every other fish in the
lake has a harder time finding food. Fish that are primarily planktivores
start to suffer. In this 600-acre lake in Vermont, within 5 years of
alewives getting put in there, there wasn't a smelt to be seen. The impacts
go on and on. Also - what the short-sighted fisherman neglected to realize
was that this particular lake flows directly into Lake Champlain. Now take
the problem and multiply it by 1,000. Alewives in Lake Champlain is a
disaster waiting to happen. I'm not talking about JUST bass. I'm a
fisheries biologist, not a bass biologist, so I research and manage all
species in Vermont. The walleye, lake trout, landlocked Atlantic salmon,
smelt, perch - all potentially could decline.

But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what is
known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input of
nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all the
big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like someon
said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or 20
ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.

So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what we
have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger fish
just makes the available food go around futher.

You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
consuming.

I've blabbed enough. Your turn.

Shawn



"go-bassn" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in rofb.
> My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
> field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry
III
> final lol.
>
> Hear me out on this...
>
> Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the remaining
> prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators. I'm
> in no way denying it.
>
> But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as
bass
> fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the
root
> of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that,
viewing
> the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as
the
> result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the population
> of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.
>
> Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
> saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"
>
> I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
> species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these
waters.
> The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded with
> baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
> Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy
bass.
> Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
> ecostystems.
>
> Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.
>
> Warren
> --
> http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
>
>
>
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> > removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote.
"Stunted
> > fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing
small
> > bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited
amount
> of
> > food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will
only
> > get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to
grow.
> > Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> > alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed to
> > metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in length
> and
> > weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them the
> same
> > amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> > ultimately larger.
> >
> > You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not enough.
> > With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS to
> be
> > removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> > remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish
and
> > small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
> removal
> > needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water
body
> > to a more balanced situation.
> >
> > Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective harvest"
> and
> > a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
> most
> > situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> > species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> > warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> > management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
> Black
> > Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries
Society
> > and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass
researchers,
> > biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
> research
> > and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text
book
> > has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
> came
> > from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> > presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
> North
> > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
opposite
> > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting
in
> > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> >
> > I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology
and
> > management lessons ......
> >
> > Shawn
> > n
> >
> >
> > "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any
lake
> > is
> > > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
> ecosystem.
> > > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
> fix;
> > > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
> on
> > > solving it.
> > >
> > > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > > levels, that's my belief at least.
> > >
> > > Warren
> > > --
> > > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
> bass.
> > > > Ronnie
> > > >
> > > > http://fishing.about.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[go-bassn]

Excellent Shawn. You know your stuff.

I agree with you almost entirely. But I still think baitfish populations
can be enhanced in most cases by simply managing the water for them. That
is, provide habitat designed to sustain baitfish, not just bass. I think
the problem often is that the bait has nowhere to hide. If you keep a big,
hungry bass in an otherwise empty fish tank & pour in a dozen baitfish,
he'll have them hanging out of his gills within minutes. Now, add a bunch
of weeds/rocks/etc to that tank & there might be some baitfish swimming
around in a day or two.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Warren : Again, I can see some validity in what you are saying, but I
also
> see some problem areas in your theory. In some smaller lakes and ponds,
> what you are saying that may be feasible. I guess I don't know where this
> tread originated and which waterbody it was referring to - but in most
cases
> unfortunately, managing the forage base tends to be a little more
> complicated than managing the larger predatory fish.
>
> In most situations, the forage base, be it shiners, dace, minnows etc.,
are
> mainly only limited by the amount of predatory pressure put on them. I
know
> of small ponds (I'm talking 1/2 an acre) that are just CHOCK full of
golden
> shiners. You throw a cast net and get hundreds and hundreds. There are
no
> predators in these ponds, save for the occasional great blue heron that
> stops by. These species of fish can live just about anywhere, in any
> conditions. There's not much limiting their populations except for direct
> predation.
>
> It gets a little more complicated when you start looking at bass-bluegill
> communities, as even in the face of predation, bluegills can take over a
> pond and ultimately become stunted themselves. In those cases, we must
> manage for larger predators, and limit harvest of those predators.
>
> Certain species of forage CAN be managed for, mainly by stocking, such as
> smelt and shad, in order to increase the forage base for predators such as
> bass. However, managers must be very careful in these situations,
> especially when you consider native communities and natural balances, as
> you've referred to before. In Vermont, someone took it upon themselves to
> introduce alewives to a small 600-acre lake, thinking they'd be helping
the
> bass population in that lake. This is always dangerous when fisherman
play
> Johnny Appleseed with fish. They see the short term gains but don't
> necessarily see the long term impacts. Alewives are a dangerous species
in
> landlocked situations. At first, fish like smallmouth and largemouth bass
> can see some initial growth rate increases due to the sudden abundance of
> food. That's what we call "individual level" changes. However, as years
go
> on, changes start occurring at the "population level". Alewives are
> predators themselves. They just don't eat plankton like other species of
> shad. They love fish eggs and fish fry, right after hatching. Alewives
> reproduce fast and in great numbers. Soon there are hordes of alewives
> roaming the shallows, increasing the mortality rates on bass eggs and baby
> bass over what what already there from bluegill, pumpkinseeds etc. They
> also compete with the young bass for food. For the first few months of
> their lives, baby bass eat plankton. Study after study has shown that
> alewives introduced into lakes can drastically deplete plankton abundance
> and change the community. Basically, baby bass and every other fish in
the
> lake has a harder time finding food. Fish that are primarily planktivores
> start to suffer. In this 600-acre lake in Vermont, within 5 years of
> alewives getting put in there, there wasn't a smelt to be seen. The
impacts
> go on and on. Also - what the short-sighted fisherman neglected to
realize
> was that this particular lake flows directly into Lake Champlain. Now
take
> the problem and multiply it by 1,000. Alewives in Lake Champlain is a
> disaster waiting to happen. I'm not talking about JUST bass. I'm a
> fisheries biologist, not a bass biologist, so I research and manage all
> species in Vermont. The walleye, lake trout, landlocked Atlantic salmon,
> smelt, perch - all potentially could decline.
>
> But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what
is
> known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
> simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
> organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input
of
> nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
> plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all
the
> big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
> that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like
someon
> said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
> example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or
20
> ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
> numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
> the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.
>
> So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what
we
> have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger
fish
> just makes the available food go around futher.
>
> You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
> because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
> has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
> consuming.
>
> I've blabbed enough. Your turn.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in
rofb.
> > My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
> > field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry
> III
> > final lol.
> >
> > Hear me out on this...
> >
> > Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the
remaining
> > prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators.
I'm
> > in no way denying it.
> >
> > But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as
> bass
> > fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the
> root
> > of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that,
> viewing
> > the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as
> the
> > result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the
population
> > of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.
> >
> > Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
> > saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"
> >
> > I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
> > species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these
> waters.
> > The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded
with
> > baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
> > Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy
> bass.
> > Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
> > ecostystems.
> >
> > Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "Shawn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> > > removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote.
> "Stunted
> > > fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing
> small
> > > bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited
> amount
> > of
> > > food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will
> only
> > > get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to
> grow.
> > > Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> > > alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed
to
> > > metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in
length
> > and
> > > weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them
the
> > same
> > > amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> > > ultimately larger.
> > >
> > > You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not
enough.
> > > With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS
to
> > be
> > > removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> > > remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish
> and
> > > small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
> > removal
> > > needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water
> body
> > > to a more balanced situation.
> > >
> > > Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective
harvest"
> > and
> > > a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
> > most
> > > situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> > > species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> > > warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> > > management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
> > Black
> > > Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries
> Society
> > > and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass
> researchers,
> > > biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
> > research
> > > and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text
> book
> > > has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
> > came
> > > from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> > > presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
> > North
> > > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
> opposite
> > > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was
resulting
> in
> > > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in
some
> > > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> > >
> > > I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology
> and
> > > management lessons ......
> > >
> > > Shawn
> > > n
> > >
> > >
> > > "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any
> lake
> > > is
> > > > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
> > ecosystem.
> > > > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't
have
> > > > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
> > fix;
> > > > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no
bearing
> > on
> > > > solving it.
> > > >
> > > > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at
all
> > > > levels, that's my belief at least.
> > > >
> > > > Warren
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > > > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > > > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
> > bass.
> > > > > Ronnie
> > > > >
> > > > > http://fishing.about.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[go-bassn]

Excellent Shawn. You know your stuff.

I agree with you almost entirely. But I still think baitfish populations
can be enhanced in most cases by simply managing the water for them. That
is, provide habitat designed to sustain baitfish, not just bass. I think
the problem often is that the bait has nowhere to hide. If you keep a big,
hungry bass in an otherwise empty fish tank & pour in a dozen baitfish,
he'll have them hanging out of his gills within minutes. Now, add a bunch
of weeds/rocks/etc to that tank & there might be some baitfish swimming
around in a day or two.

Warren
--
http://www.warrenwolk.com/
http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions



"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Warren : Again, I can see some validity in what you are saying, but I
also
> see some problem areas in your theory. In some smaller lakes and ponds,
> what you are saying that may be feasible. I guess I don't know where this
> tread originated and which waterbody it was referring to - but in most
cases
> unfortunately, managing the forage base tends to be a little more
> complicated than managing the larger predatory fish.
>
> In most situations, the forage base, be it shiners, dace, minnows etc.,
are
> mainly only limited by the amount of predatory pressure put on them. I
know
> of small ponds (I'm talking 1/2 an acre) that are just CHOCK full of
golden
> shiners. You throw a cast net and get hundreds and hundreds. There are
no
> predators in these ponds, save for the occasional great blue heron that
> stops by. These species of fish can live just about anywhere, in any
> conditions. There's not much limiting their populations except for direct
> predation.
>
> It gets a little more complicated when you start looking at bass-bluegill
> communities, as even in the face of predation, bluegills can take over a
> pond and ultimately become stunted themselves. In those cases, we must
> manage for larger predators, and limit harvest of those predators.
>
> Certain species of forage CAN be managed for, mainly by stocking, such as
> smelt and shad, in order to increase the forage base for predators such as
> bass. However, managers must be very careful in these situations,
> especially when you consider native communities and natural balances, as
> you've referred to before. In Vermont, someone took it upon themselves to
> introduce alewives to a small 600-acre lake, thinking they'd be helping
the
> bass population in that lake. This is always dangerous when fisherman
play
> Johnny Appleseed with fish. They see the short term gains but don't
> necessarily see the long term impacts. Alewives are a dangerous species
in
> landlocked situations. At first, fish like smallmouth and largemouth bass
> can see some initial growth rate increases due to the sudden abundance of
> food. That's what we call "individual level" changes. However, as years
go
> on, changes start occurring at the "population level". Alewives are
> predators themselves. They just don't eat plankton like other species of
> shad. They love fish eggs and fish fry, right after hatching. Alewives
> reproduce fast and in great numbers. Soon there are hordes of alewives
> roaming the shallows, increasing the mortality rates on bass eggs and baby
> bass over what what already there from bluegill, pumpkinseeds etc. They
> also compete with the young bass for food. For the first few months of
> their lives, baby bass eat plankton. Study after study has shown that
> alewives introduced into lakes can drastically deplete plankton abundance
> and change the community. Basically, baby bass and every other fish in
the
> lake has a harder time finding food. Fish that are primarily planktivores
> start to suffer. In this 600-acre lake in Vermont, within 5 years of
> alewives getting put in there, there wasn't a smelt to be seen. The
impacts
> go on and on. Also - what the short-sighted fisherman neglected to
realize
> was that this particular lake flows directly into Lake Champlain. Now
take
> the problem and multiply it by 1,000. Alewives in Lake Champlain is a
> disaster waiting to happen. I'm not talking about JUST bass. I'm a
> fisheries biologist, not a bass biologist, so I research and manage all
> species in Vermont. The walleye, lake trout, landlocked Atlantic salmon,
> smelt, perch - all potentially could decline.
>
> But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what
is
> known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
> simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
> organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input
of
> nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
> plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all
the
> big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
> that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like
someon
> said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
> example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or
20
> ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
> numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
> the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.
>
> So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what
we
> have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger
fish
> just makes the available food go around futher.
>
> You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
> because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
> has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
> consuming.
>
> I've blabbed enough. Your turn.
>
> Shawn
>
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks as always Shawn, it's great to have a real biologist here in
rofb.
> > My degree's in aquaculture, so I've got a pretty decent history in your
> > field. I still have nightmares about going into that Organic Chemistry
> III
> > final lol.
> >
> > Hear me out on this...
> >
> > Shawn, Ronnie, all - Obviously if you remove some predators the
remaining
> > prey will be disbursed more generously among the remaining predators.
I'm
> > in no way denying it.
> >
> > But you guys are looking at the immediate problem facing, well, you as
> bass
> > fishermen. I'm looking at it on a broader plane. I'm saying that the
> root
> > of the problem isn't related directly to the bass. I'm saying that,
> viewing
> > the whole food chain, that the bass in these lakes are being deprived as
> the
> > result of an insufficient supply of forage. Basically that the
population
> > of baitfish is the problem, not the population of bass.
> >
> > Instead of saying "We have too many bass in this lake...", we need to be
> > saying "What can we do to increase the forage base in this lake?"
> >
> > I've seen lakes just bubbling with large, healthy bass of both (popular)
> > species. There is little-to-no harvest, selective or not, on these
> waters.
> > The common denominator these waters have is that they are just loaded
with
> > baitfish. In your neck of the woods there's lots of those lakes Shawn.
> > Champlain, George, Erie, Ontario, etc. Just loaded with big, healthy
> bass.
> > Bass that feast at will. These are natural, ancient, well-balanced
> > ecostystems.
> >
> > Don't decrease the bass, increase the bait.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "Shawn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Stunted fish are a DIRECT result of an over-populated water body and
> > > removing fish IS the fix. Warren - think about what you wrote.
> "Stunted
> > > fish are stunted because they don't have enough to eat and removing
> small
> > > bass is nothing more than a temporary fix." If you have a limited
> amount
> > of
> > > food to be distributed amongst say 100 bass, each of those bass will
> only
> > > get a certain amount of food - and that amount may not be enough to
> grow.
> > > Maybe it's just enough for "maintenance feeding" - just enough to stay
> > > alive, in other words, without the extra protien and nutrition needed
to
> > > metabolize and convert to somatic (body) growth (and increase in
length
> > and
> > > weight). Now, if you take away 50 bass of those bass and give them
the
> > same
> > > amount of food, each bass gets a larger share and will be able to grow
> > > ultimately larger.
> > >
> > > You're partly right in that removing just the small fish is not
enough.
> > > With a stunted population, a certain portion of that population NEEDS
to
> > be
> > > removed to allow the food resources to be better distribution to the
> > > remaining population - and the removal should include both large fish
> and
> > > small fish. Large fish eat far more food than small fish do, so the
> > removal
> > > needs to include "some" of the large fish as well to return the water
> body
> > > to a more balanced situation.
> > >
> > > Most biologists you talk to nowadays will talk about "selective
harvest"
> > and
> > > a better fisheries management tool over strictly catch-and-release, in
> > most
> > > situations. There are always exceptions - in slow growing, long-lived
> > > species for instance, like muskie or lake trout. But for most basic
> > > warmwater fisheries, harvesting fish is an integral part of fisheries
> > > management. In 2000, I was sent by my Department to take part in the
> > Black
> > > Bass Symposium in St. Louis, Missouri that the American Fisheries
> Society
> > > and B.A.S.S. put on. It was a 4-day event comprised of bass
> researchers,
> > > biologists, and managers, giving presentations and papers on their
> > research
> > > and management activities from around the US and Canada. A full text
> book
> > > has since been published on bass biology and management practices that
> > came
> > > from this symposium. During the symposium I attended multiple
> > > presentations by bass researchers that basically said in some areas of
> > North
> > > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
> opposite
> > > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was
resulting
> in
> > > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in
some
> > > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> > >
> > > I'll leave it at that. I won't bore people further with bass biology
> and
> > > management lessons ......
> > >
> > > Shawn
> > > n
> > >
> > >
> > > "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any
> lake
> > > is
> > > > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
> > ecosystem.
> > > > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't
have
> > > > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
> > fix;
> > > > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no
bearing
> > on
> > > > solving it.
> > > >
> > > > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at
all
> > > > levels, that's my belief at least.
> > > >
> > > > Warren
> > > > --
> > > > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > > > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > > > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > >I say turn em all loose.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small
> > bass.
> > > > > Ronnie
> > > > >
> > > > > http://fishing.about.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Rodney]

Shawn wrote:


>
> But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what is
> known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
> simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
> organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input of
> nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
> plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all the
> big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
> that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like someon
> said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
> example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or 20
> ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
> numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
> the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.
>
> So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what we
> have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger fish
> just makes the available food go around futher.
>
> You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
> because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
> has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
> consuming.

Thanks Shawn for putting what I said in words that can be better understood.

I'm not qualified as you are, I just have worked with guys like you, for
going on 30 years now, as a volunteer for my state's DNR

I also have been involved with maintaining 3 small lakes, to grow trophy
bass, and two commercial catfish lakes

--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[Rodney]

Shawn wrote:


>
> But I'm straying. Let's just put it this way. All ecosystems have what is
> known as a "carrying capacity" in biological and ecological terms. That
> simply means the ability of that system to support a certain biomass of
> organisms at all levels of the food chain. It starts at the base - input of
> nutrients - phosphorous, nitrogen etc. That supports the algae, the
> plankton, the aquatic plants, the insects, the minnows, and finally all the
> big fish we love to fish for ! We cannot artificially augment one link in
> that chain without impacting everything above it and below it. Like someon
> said in this thread - a pond will hold 200 lbs of bass per acre (as an
> example - every waterbody is different). That can be 200 one-pounders or 20
> ten-pounders. That's a simple way of looking at it, but it works. Those
> numbers are based on the carrying capacity of that lake, factoring in all
> the chemical, biological, and physical attributes of the lake.
>
> So getting back to fish removal and stunting, we can only work with what we
> have in most cases. And removing some smaller and a even a few bigger fish
> just makes the available food go around futher.
>
> You can't really just "increase" the amount of food (minnows) in a lake,
> because that food needs food too. When you add organisms, something else
> has to do with less of the resources those newly added organisms are now
> consuming.

Thanks Shawn for putting what I said in words that can be better understood.

I'm not qualified as you are, I just have worked with guys like you, for
going on 30 years now, as a volunteer for my state's DNR

I also have been involved with maintaining 3 small lakes, to grow trophy
bass, and two commercial catfish lakes

--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[RichZ]

Shawn wrote:
> in some areas of North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>

I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no management).
Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish? If you did, you would
probably suspect the forage base as the problem.

Adding 100% C&R into that mix shouldn't change the equation. From a
standpoint of its effect on the population dynamics of the lake, Catch/No
Harvest is no different than No Catch. Yet time and again, we've seen the
professional fisheries management answer to that situation is attempts to
adjust the harvest. Perhaps the root of the problem is insufficient
nutrition, whether from not enough forage or prey that requires more energy
to hunt/capture than it produces in calories.

Harvest as a means to manage a lake's population balance can only be
effective if there are enough successful anglers who are also inclined and
willing to harvest the small ones. And even if it does work, it still fails
to address the possibility that the root of the problem is related more to
forage than to harvest patterns.

I can't think of a lake in the northeast that had this problem over the past
35 years that was cured by anything other than the introduction of a high
protien forage species -- in most cases, alewife, although I know that's a
dirty word in VT.

RichZ©
www.richz.com/fishing

[RichZ]

Shawn wrote:
> in some areas of North
> America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the opposite
> effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting in
> more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> populations because of limited food resource availability.
>

I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no management).
Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish? If you did, you would
probably suspect the forage base as the problem.

Adding 100% C&R into that mix shouldn't change the equation. From a
standpoint of its effect on the population dynamics of the lake, Catch/No
Harvest is no different than No Catch. Yet time and again, we've seen the
professional fisheries management answer to that situation is attempts to
adjust the harvest. Perhaps the root of the problem is insufficient
nutrition, whether from not enough forage or prey that requires more energy
to hunt/capture than it produces in calories.

Harvest as a means to manage a lake's population balance can only be
effective if there are enough successful anglers who are also inclined and
willing to harvest the small ones. And even if it does work, it still fails
to address the possibility that the root of the problem is related more to
forage than to harvest patterns.

I can't think of a lake in the northeast that had this problem over the past
35 years that was cured by anything other than the introduction of a high
protien forage species -- in most cases, alewife, although I know that's a
dirty word in VT.

RichZ©
www.richz.com/fishing

[G. M. Zimmermann]

> While doing this, I noticed that of the 162 bass I've caught since May
>2nd, 46 have been keepers. That means only 28% of the fish I've caught have
>been keeper size (14 inches). This seems a little low. Anybody else keep
>records like this? How are you doing?

I don't really keep records of what's a keeper and what isn't. Mostly because
the minimum size for most lakes is 12" but some special regulations lakes have
a minimum size of 15". So I could catch a 14" bass on one lake and it would be
a keeper and on another lake it wouldn't be.
Instead, I just dont count anything under 12". Most of my fish are right
around the 12" mark anyway.

-Zimmy

[Rodney]

RichZ wrote:


> I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
> would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
> by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
> intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
> catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no management).
> Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish?

Absolutely, we have a non accessible creek close to my home, for a
hundred years that creek was DEAD, well 25 years ago they cleaned it up,
the problem is there is little access to it, no one fishes it's length,
it's a tough canoe trip and takes two days to run from one access to the
next.

WE did that last year, we caught over a 100 bass a day, (each of us did)
none were over 1 1/2 lbs, 98% of them were under 12 inches

WE have another creek the same size as this one, that has multiple
accesses,, you see cars parked at every bridge and trails along it's
bank, I regularly catch 4 to 5 lb spots out of it, with most bass
running over 15 inches


One thing here that has been forgotten about in a true natural balance,
in nature there are many fish removed from to the water, by animals of
the land, these predators are rare now, none really around here, as our
bears have been gone for over 150 years, we have just a hand full of
bald eagles, very, very few giant river otters, now we do have a lot of
snakes that eat the very small fish.

God balanced the waters to supply food for the land creatures, as it is
now, we are the only real land creatures to take those fish out. So to
get a true natural balance we need to restock our bears, and otters, and
alligators (the gators have not returned this far north)

Everyone that I know that deals with lakes, and fishing is aware of
this, except for tree hugging PETA crazies, and bass fishermen that like
to catch a bass, every cast, regardless of size.
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[Rodney]

RichZ wrote:


> I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
> would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
> by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
> intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
> catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no management).
> Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish?

Absolutely, we have a non accessible creek close to my home, for a
hundred years that creek was DEAD, well 25 years ago they cleaned it up,
the problem is there is little access to it, no one fishes it's length,
it's a tough canoe trip and takes two days to run from one access to the
next.

WE did that last year, we caught over a 100 bass a day, (each of us did)
none were over 1 1/2 lbs, 98% of them were under 12 inches

WE have another creek the same size as this one, that has multiple
accesses,, you see cars parked at every bridge and trails along it's
bank, I regularly catch 4 to 5 lb spots out of it, with most bass
running over 15 inches


One thing here that has been forgotten about in a true natural balance,
in nature there are many fish removed from to the water, by animals of
the land, these predators are rare now, none really around here, as our
bears have been gone for over 150 years, we have just a hand full of
bald eagles, very, very few giant river otters, now we do have a lot of
snakes that eat the very small fish.

God balanced the waters to supply food for the land creatures, as it is
now, we are the only real land creatures to take those fish out. So to
get a true natural balance we need to restock our bears, and otters, and
alligators (the gators have not returned this far north)

Everyone that I know that deals with lakes, and fishing is aware of
this, except for tree hugging PETA crazies, and bass fishermen that like
to catch a bass, every cast, regardless of size.
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Long Shot "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, Decoy Activator
and the EZKnot http://www.ezknot.com

[go-bassn]

At last, a comrade!

Warren

"RichZ" > wrote in message
...
> Shawn wrote:
> > in some areas of North
> > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
opposite
> > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting
in
> > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> >
>
> I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
> would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
> by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
> intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
> catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no
management).
> Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish? If you did, you
would
> probably suspect the forage base as the problem.
>
> Adding 100% C&R into that mix shouldn't change the equation. From a
> standpoint of its effect on the population dynamics of the lake, Catch/No
> Harvest is no different than No Catch. Yet time and again, we've seen the
> professional fisheries management answer to that situation is attempts to
> adjust the harvest. Perhaps the root of the problem is insufficient
> nutrition, whether from not enough forage or prey that requires more
energy
> to hunt/capture than it produces in calories.
>
> Harvest as a means to manage a lake's population balance can only be
> effective if there are enough successful anglers who are also inclined and
> willing to harvest the small ones. And even if it does work, it still
fails
> to address the possibility that the root of the problem is related more
to
> forage than to harvest patterns.
>
> I can't think of a lake in the northeast that had this problem over the
past
> 35 years that was cured by anything other than the introduction of a high
> protien forage species -- in most cases, alewife, although I know that's a
> dirty word in VT.
>
> RichZ©
> www.richz.com/fishing
>

[go-bassn]

At last, a comrade!

Warren

"RichZ" > wrote in message
...
> Shawn wrote:
> > in some areas of North
> > America, the "catch-and-release" philosophy was almost having the
opposite
> > effect as people were thinking, in that decreased harvest was resulting
in
> > more bass, but smaller in overall size, bordering on "stunting" in some
> > populations because of limited food resource availability.
> >
>
> I understand what you're saying, but in the spirit of friendly debate, I
> would suggest that it comes from the perspective of fisheries managers who
> by their nature tend to view fisheries as something that requires human
> intervention in the form of 'management'. Think of a virgin fishery. No
> catch, no release, no harvest, no interference from man (IE, no
management).
> Ever see one that was overpopulated with stunted fish? If you did, you
would
> probably suspect the forage base as the problem.
>
> Adding 100% C&R into that mix shouldn't change the equation. From a
> standpoint of its effect on the population dynamics of the lake, Catch/No
> Harvest is no different than No Catch. Yet time and again, we've seen the
> professional fisheries management answer to that situation is attempts to
> adjust the harvest. Perhaps the root of the problem is insufficient
> nutrition, whether from not enough forage or prey that requires more
energy
> to hunt/capture than it produces in calories.
>
> Harvest as a means to manage a lake's population balance can only be
> effective if there are enough successful anglers who are also inclined and
> willing to harvest the small ones. And even if it does work, it still
fails
> to address the possibility that the root of the problem is related more
to
> forage than to harvest patterns.
>
> I can't think of a lake in the northeast that had this problem over the
past
> 35 years that was cured by anything other than the introduction of a high
> protien forage species -- in most cases, alewife, although I know that's a
> dirty word in VT.
>
> RichZ©
> www.richz.com/fishing
>

[go-bassn]

You're lucky to live in HI Ken. Obviously bass aren't native to Kauai.
Obviously the guys that put them there didn't put much thought into things
either.

Warren

"IMKen" > wrote in message
...
> I live and fish in an unusual environment. here on Kauai bass fishing is
> limited to few reservoirs that are open to the public. Several years
back
> I discovered a small hidden reservoir that had not been fished in over ten
> years. I began packing in there a couple times a week. it was really
cool
> to be able to flip a lure out and catch a LM on every other cast. Most
were
> about 1 pound with a rare 2 pounder every now and then. Any day would
> produce 8 to ten bass in an hour.
> Bait fish were rarely seen. I would every now and then see a small
tilapia
> or bluegill but not often. I believe they were just eaten as fast as they
> were spawned.
>
> I began taking a few bass for the frying pan every trip in. I took out 60
> bass around a pound each over a 6 month period. I still was able to get
> plenty of action even though this water was little over 100 feet wide by
600
> feet long and 8 feet deep. It was not long before we started catching
some
> larger fish. By the second year of culling the small fish we were
catching
> 3 pounders on a regular basis. Action definitely slowed as we now were
only
> catching 2 to 3 bass per hour but nearly all were larger. Small bait
fish
> are now seen frequently so I can only think that it is because of the
fewer
> number of larger fish preying on them. That I feel is also one reason of
a
> lower catch, the remaining bass are not as hungry.
>
> I think some culling of smaller fish where they are over abundant is
proper
> and healthy for good fishing.
> No science, just personal observation of one case.
>
> Ken
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> > is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >I say turn em all loose.
> >> >
> >>
> >> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> >> Ronnie
> >>
> >> http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>

[go-bassn]

You're lucky to live in HI Ken. Obviously bass aren't native to Kauai.
Obviously the guys that put them there didn't put much thought into things
either.

Warren

"IMKen" > wrote in message
...
> I live and fish in an unusual environment. here on Kauai bass fishing is
> limited to few reservoirs that are open to the public. Several years
back
> I discovered a small hidden reservoir that had not been fished in over ten
> years. I began packing in there a couple times a week. it was really
cool
> to be able to flip a lure out and catch a LM on every other cast. Most
were
> about 1 pound with a rare 2 pounder every now and then. Any day would
> produce 8 to ten bass in an hour.
> Bait fish were rarely seen. I would every now and then see a small
tilapia
> or bluegill but not often. I believe they were just eaten as fast as they
> were spawned.
>
> I began taking a few bass for the frying pan every trip in. I took out 60
> bass around a pound each over a 6 month period. I still was able to get
> plenty of action even though this water was little over 100 feet wide by
600
> feet long and 8 feet deep. It was not long before we started catching
some
> larger fish. By the second year of culling the small fish we were
catching
> 3 pounders on a regular basis. Action definitely slowed as we now were
only
> catching 2 to 3 bass per hour but nearly all were larger. Small bait
fish
> are now seen frequently so I can only think that it is because of the
fewer
> number of larger fish preying on them. That I feel is also one reason of
a
> lower catch, the remaining bass are not as hungry.
>
> I think some culling of smaller fish where they are over abundant is
proper
> and healthy for good fishing.
> No science, just personal observation of one case.
>
> Ken
>
>
> "go-bassn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I've said it before Ronnie, the overpopulation of small bass on any lake
> > is
> > 99% of the time based on an inbalance somewhere in the water's
ecosystem.
> > The problem of stunted fish generally means that those fish don't have
> > enough to eat. Removing small bass is nothing more than a temporary
fix;
> > It had nothing to do with the cause of the problem & it has no bearing
on
> > solving it.
> >
> > Balanced ecosystems have a way of mainting healthy populations at all
> > levels, that's my belief at least.
> >
> > Warren
> > --
> > http://www.warrenwolk.com/
> > http://www.tri-statebassmasters.com
> > 2004 NJ B.A.S.S. Federation State Champions
> >
> >
> >
> > "RGarri7470" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >I say turn em all loose.
> >> >
> >>
> >> on some lakes that adds to the problem of overpopulation of small bass.
> >> Ronnie
> >>
> >> http://fishing.about.com
> >
> >
>
>