Spotted Bass Proposition

Hey Guys

I've been mulling around the idea of talking to CDFW about increasing the bag limit and making a no minimum length, 19" maximum length limit on spots.

From the bit of research I've been doing about fisheries management and biomass, I think that different regulations would enhance our fisheries and bring the quality of spots up.

I know there are professional biologists here. Any comments, pros and cons?

It's funny, some of my buddies are die-hard Bassaholics and cringe at the though of eating a bass, everything must be CPR'd to them.  Those cookie cutter 12-14" fish are voracious (and delicious!), I have no problem keeping a handful for taco night.

Spotted bass are a nuisance (in most CA reservoirs). We should remove the size limits and allow retention of 10/day (where applicable).

Would relaxing the regulations on spotted bass result in the desired effect of producing fewer but larger fish?  Or to put the question another way: is there a significant demand among anglers to go out and keep a limit of bass?  Like Ben said, I think most guys who target bass don't keep them anyway.  So even if the regulations were relaxed in this situation, you might not see any effect on your average fish size.

I could see the maximum size limit be immediately contested by professional bass fishing tournaments.  All those boats+anglers+concessionaires that come with those tournaments likely provide an economic boost to places like Shasta.  They might get real sour if they're forced to release all their kicker fish and it could turn those tourney circuits away from CA lakes that have significant spotted bass populations (and therefore impact the towns that typically host the tourney guys).

There was quite an uproar among anglers when the proposal to remove limits and size restrictions on striped bass came about, yet you always hear about anglers complaining about there being "too many shakers" while they try to catch legal-sized fish to keep.  Sounds like a similar situation here with the spots.  I could see a similar uproar occur over relaxed restrictions on spotted bass as well.

I'm not supporting one argument over the other, just pointing out a few of the obstacles you might come across in proposing relaxed restrictions  .

I think a lot of our deeper reservoirs here in NorCal are more naturally suited for spots vs largemouth.

I don't know if increasing limits of spotted bass would do anything because most of us just throw back the ones we catch now. I agree that the focus on catch and release can be misguided in certain situations and this may be one of them.

*not a professional biologist*

 

Those cookie cutter 12-14" fish are voracious (and delicious!), I have no problem keeping a handful for taco night.

+1

Most of us can, but I wonder if the average angler would even be able to tell the difference between a spot and LMB?

I'm basing this on lake Shasta mainly even though im sure there are other rocky reservoirs that this would pertain to.

It might seem like the majority of people fishing for bass are CnR oriented, but I would be willing to bet otherwise. Here on Shasta, taking into consideration shore and boat fishing, I would imagine that 80% of people are keeping bass for food.  I think that bass clubs make a hullabaloo about tossing every bass back, but from research I've done, that isn't really the best thing.

I fished a lot of farm ponds when I was younger and they would go through cycles. A good year was when there would be plenty of bluegill and you would get a good mix of bass with the occasional 5-8 pounder. A bad year, there wouldn't be much bluegill or crappie and you would catch tons of small bass that were emaciated. The owners would ask us to throw all the bass we caught under 15 inches up on the bank. That would bring back the bluegill and large bass, and keep it that way for a couple years.

As far as tourneys go, there could be a special allowance to keep plus size fish alive in a livewell for release in the same body of water.

As far as Shasta goes, most people who have fished this lake for 30+ years say how much better the fishing was before spots were introduced. That includes Largemouth, smallmouth, crappie, bluegill and German browns. I think that if these bass pros knew how it worked they would be glad people took more spots out of the lake. Don't they want 20, two to four pound spots with nice kickers instead of 100, nine to eleven inch spots? I know I do.

Most of us can, but I wonder if the average angler would even be able to tell the difference between a spot and LMB?

a basic picture of a spot and Largemouth side by side showing the mouth closed would do the trick, printed in the regs. You can't hardly catch a Largemouth in Shasta anymore. I have caught two in Shasta in the last few years.

I think a lot of our deeper reservoirs here in NorCal are more naturally suited for spots vs largemouth

If the water fluctuates drastically during the bulk of the spawn, that is the case. However that certainly doesn't mean that Largemouth won't successfully spawn there. And Largemouth tend to reach pretty good averages in these lakes. A few 10+ pound Largemouth used to be caught out of Shasta each year.

Flatheads would short work of short bass.  Fun to catch too.

I learned something new today.   

"Spotted bass are notoriously good-eating fish, due to their clear-water habitat, offshore existence, and muscle-bound frame"

I'll have to keep some for dinner the next time I get into them. Filet them up.

http://www.in-fisherman.com/2011/06/02/spotted-bass/









 

I'm basing this on lake Shasta mainly even though im sure there are other rocky reservoirs that this would pertain to.

It might seem like the majority of people fishing for bass are CnR oriented, but I would be willing to bet otherwise. Here on Shasta, taking into consideration shore and boat fishing, I would imagine that 80% of people are keeping bass for food.  I think that bass clubs make a hullabaloo about tossing every bass back, but from research I've done, that isn't really the best thing.

I fished a lot of farm ponds when I was younger and they would go through cycles. A good year was when there would be plenty of bluegill and you would get a good mix of bass with the occasional 5-8 pounder. A bad year, there wouldn't be much bluegill or crappie and you would catch tons of small bass that were emaciated. The owners would ask us to throw all the bass we caught under 15 inches up on the bank. That would bring back the bluegill and large bass, and keep it that way for a couple years.

As far as tourneys go, there could be a special allowance to keep plus size fish alive in a livewell for release in the same body of water.

As far as Shasta goes, most people who have fished this lake for 30+ years say how much better the fishing was before spots were introduced. That includes Largemouth, smallmouth, crappie, bluegill and German browns. I think that if these bass pros knew how it worked they would be glad people took more spots out of the lake. Don't they want 20, two to four pound spots with nice kickers instead of 100, nine to eleven inch spots? I know I do.

In a small water like a farm pond, I totally agree that the culling of small fish would equate to large fish due to decreased competition for resources.  But Shasta is HUGE.  The amount of fishing pressure required to even make a dent in the spotted bass population would be enormous.  And to have a significant effect above the current effect of a 5-fish limit would require all those anglers to keep 10 fish an outing.  That might happen, but I really don't see that coming to fruition.  A family of four is probably not going to keep 40 bass in one outing.  Besides, that family probably wouldn't want to eat that many bass anyway once they see the mercury levels present in Lake Shasta spotted bass: according to a 2007 DWR study of methylmercury concentrations in fish of select CA lakes, spotted bass over 12 inches tested above the 0.3mg/kg OEHHA screening value and EPA water quality criterion for mercury (not enough to warrant health advisories, but enough to warrant more intensive monitoring):

http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/waterquality/mercury_contamination_in_fish_from_northern_california_lakes_and_reservoirs/mercurycontaminationfinalonline.pdf

As for the special regulation for tournament anglers to keep bass above a certain maximum size limit: I think that starts to fragment the definition of "take" according to CDFW regulations.  It would give special privileges to those who own livewells, and would shut out those who cannot afford them.  I imagine there would have to be a special permit that tourney organizers would require for the exemption.  Otherwise anyone could just say "oh my buddy and I are in a tournament between the two of us" or something to that effect.

Then, to put a NCKA-specific spin on it: any oversized spotted bass you caught from Shasta could no longer be submitted into AOTY, as it wouldn't qualify as a fish you could legally keep and eat.  Just thought I'd throw that out there  .

I learned something new today.   

"Spotted bass are notoriously good-eating fish, due to their clear-water habitat, offshore existence, and muscle-bound frame"

I'll have to keep some for dinner the next time I get into them. Filet them up.

http://www.in-fisherman.com/2011/06/02/spotted-bass/

They beat a lot of saltwater fish for eating, especially right now with cold water. Panko is my favorite with a mix up between tacos or steamed whole with hot sesame oil and green onions vying for second.

Grimm Keeper this proposal sounds good to me...