zimmy
10-22-2007, 11:49 AM
[QUOTE=piemma;533397]1 fish a day, 36" minimum. You that are old enough remember the Bass Moritorium. We had 1 fish 36" then 1 fish 34" and the stocks came back strong.
There are those of us that don't keep fish under 36" anyway, but I see guys even in the boats keeping 28" fish all the time. I think it's a waste.
QUOTE]
I am really interested in the basis for determining size limits I would like to know why is better to take over 36" or 42" or 28"?
My instinct is that it is better to keep the breeders in the stock.
Is it because at say 36"... less people catch em that size so the overall take would be reduced? Is it that they have at least had a chance to spawn?
I know there is evidence that populations where larger specimens are removed eventually become populations with smaller size specimens. Also, if they survived long enough to be large, their offspring are genetically pre-disposed to become large.
Also, at the higher end of the age scale, they are fewer specimens overall due to all mortality factors. By requiring people who want to eat bass to keep larger fish, there would be increased pressure on large fish. Now a guy can keep a 28",of which there are very high numbers, for the table and release a bigger breeder back into the stocks.
My instinct is 1 @ 36" worked in the 80's and 90's cause there weren't as many big fish available, therefore less people fished, less fish were caught, overall take was reduced. It's not like the average guy up and down the coast could get in his boat and catch a 40" bass as they can now.
That all said, it is just my thoughts. 1 at 36" is likely dramatically better than what we have now. I just wonder if iand why t is better than 1 between 18" and 27" or 1 at 28" or 1@60". :huh:
There are those of us that don't keep fish under 36" anyway, but I see guys even in the boats keeping 28" fish all the time. I think it's a waste.
QUOTE]
I am really interested in the basis for determining size limits I would like to know why is better to take over 36" or 42" or 28"?
My instinct is that it is better to keep the breeders in the stock.
Is it because at say 36"... less people catch em that size so the overall take would be reduced? Is it that they have at least had a chance to spawn?
I know there is evidence that populations where larger specimens are removed eventually become populations with smaller size specimens. Also, if they survived long enough to be large, their offspring are genetically pre-disposed to become large.
Also, at the higher end of the age scale, they are fewer specimens overall due to all mortality factors. By requiring people who want to eat bass to keep larger fish, there would be increased pressure on large fish. Now a guy can keep a 28",of which there are very high numbers, for the table and release a bigger breeder back into the stocks.
My instinct is 1 @ 36" worked in the 80's and 90's cause there weren't as many big fish available, therefore less people fished, less fish were caught, overall take was reduced. It's not like the average guy up and down the coast could get in his boat and catch a 40" bass as they can now.
That all said, it is just my thoughts. 1 at 36" is likely dramatically better than what we have now. I just wonder if iand why t is better than 1 between 18" and 27" or 1 at 28" or 1@60". :huh: