Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Today's Posts Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Main Forum » StriperTalk!

StriperTalk! All things Striper

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-05-2009, 11:15 AM   #1
Mr. Sandman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Mr. Sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,649
IMO that "problem" is a misconception. 1@ 36 allows EVERY FISH to breed something like 4 or 5 times ( I don't have the numbers but is is something on that order). We are talking massive amounts of fish allowed to breed EVERY YEAR. The older so called "breeder" fish you site do have more eggs per fish however I am not convinced that they are as ripe or as healthy as a sub 36"er. If you ever have cut open a big female and looked at her eggs they are a different (much darker) color and I would bet most will not most of the eggs will not hatch even though there are more of them.

The problem I have with taking tiny fish is that you don't even give the fish a chance to reach maturity and spawn more than once. Give every fish a chance to spawn more than once.

1@ 36 has also worked, it was used during the rebound years and numbers increased dramatically. It allows ALL fish (not just a selected group) to spawn multiple times before being taken. Further, you spread the (rate of failure) risk among a larger number of females.

The slot is a theory and has never been technically proven. I would like to see some real evidence (not antidotes) that a few big females would be better then then bulk of the spawning biomass. I don't believe anyone has every really proved this. Saying it "worked" for one species is not the same. There are a lot of other variables that contributed to the rebound of those fish.


Lastly it is simple and straightforward.

I don't know about you but I just don't want to take a small fish...ever. It just feels naturally wrong to do so. I don't get any feeling of pride in even catching a small bass. I will stop fishing for them if that is all there is.
Mr. Sandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 09:51 AM   #2
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman View Post
IMO that "problem" is a misconception....If you ever have cut open a big female and looked at her eggs they are a different (much darker) color and I would bet most will not most of the eggs will not hatch even though there are more of them.

The problem I have with taking tiny fish is that you don't even give the fish a chance to reach maturity and spawn more than once. Give every fish a chance to spawn more than once.

1@ 36 has also worked, it was used during the rebound years and numbers increased dramatically. It allows ALL fish (not just a selected group) to spawn multiple times before being taken. Further, you spread the (rate of failure) risk among a larger number of females.

The slot is a theory and has never been technically proven. I would like to see some real evidence (not antidotes) that a few big females would be better then then bulk of the spawning biomass. I don't believe anyone has every really proved this. Saying it "worked" for one species is not the same. There are a lot of other variables that contributed to the rebound of those fish.


Lastly it is simple and straightforward.

I don't know about you but I just don't want to take a small fish...ever. It just feels naturally wrong to do so. I don't get any feeling of pride in even catching a small bass. I will stop fishing for them if that is all there is.
I can't say what I think definitively about 1@36" as I just don't know.

However:
I have not found any literature that says there is a drop in viability of eggs in fish in the 40-50lb range. That might be an issue when the fish is in the 60lb + range. If there is data that I haven't read I would be interested in seeing it. Those bigger fish put out exponentially more eggs. It takes tons more small fish to make up for lost big fish.

Over 36" you are taking almost entirely females.

I think there is validity that by targeting small fish, you get less competition and the males take some of the impact, which allows the fish to grow bigger more quickly and and be healthier.

During the rebound years the # of people fishing and catching were dramatically lower than now.

The idea with the slot is that there are more big fish to "catch", not less. I personally would rather eat a 26" or 22" for that matter than a 40". Keeping the 40" "feels" wrong to me; that is my personal feeling, not necessarily one that makes sense. I don't fish for pride, I don't keep big fish for pride, but if I wanna eat one I wopuld prefer it to be smaller

Much of this is just my opinion, by the way....

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2009, 11:41 AM   #3
Mr. Sandman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Mr. Sandman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,649
You make some good points and I don't dispute (many of)them.


I too would rather eat a smaller fish for a number of reasons but 36 is a good balance. A 36 in fish has a lot of eggs. Not as much as a 60 but again still a lot. And if we had LOTS of 36" fish as a breeding base that could not be touched...I would feel a lot more comfortable about the stability of the breeding stock. (also, that does not mean that all fish over 36" would be gobbled up by the rec take either, as I said, the sport is clearly moving in the conservationist direction with more C&R going on today than ever before. With sensible recs and good sportsmanship (along with a ton of available bait!) I think the species would have a bright future.

There has never been a time when there were a lot of 60#ers. There just hasn't. They die for many reasons some fisherman related, some natural. On the other hand there have been times when there have been many very healthy mid size fish. I just like my chances better with masses of mid size fish. Basically I like playing to the bell curve, you want you breeding base at the sweet spot not the tail ends. And I have my doubts you can artificially increase the number of heavyweights significantly enough to matter by tweaking the rec take. If that was the ONLY form of mortality, then maybe, perhaps, but it isn't.

As for pride, perhaps that is the wrong word. (I blast out verbage and post without thinking about it too often But my point was that most fisherman want to catch large fish, not small ones. I really fish for memories...and the ones I recall the best seem to be the ones that involved larger fish, not smaller ones.


Bottom line... I am so not sure that a slot will produce "more" jumbos and even if they did I am not sure that it would necessarily produce more young fish. Until it is proven my view would be to keep is simple and lock in a %$%$%$%$load of 36" fish which for most people is a big fish.

Last edited by Mr. Sandman; 03-06-2009 at 11:48 AM.. Reason: I blast out verbage and post without thinking about it
Mr. Sandman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com