Northwest Fishing Reports

After reading the Keeping Big Bass post, it got me thinking about size limits and spawning.

Here in Wa, there is no size minimum, you can keep bass under 12", but when I lived in So Cal the regs were you couldn't keep a bass unless it was at least 12", with numerous lakes with special regs of like they must be 15" or 17" to keep, with varying bag limits.

So this might be pretty simple to some out there, but I can't figure out why the difference. By going off the Keeping Big Bass post you want the larger, survival of the fittest, gentically superior bass to spawn. Makes sense to me.

Why then would bass in Cal be kept at the larger size? I know it probably has to do with strain of bass, longer growing season, etc, but I am not wrapping my brain around why. I get why the larger limit of 15" or 17" as some lakes might need those extra spawning seasons the fish provide, but what is the difference between Wa and Cal of keeping below or above 12" for bass? Anybody know?

And in no way am I advocating keeping bass

possibly because trophy sized bass is much more common in CA.
their weather allows their bass to grow much larger at a much faster rate than bass here in WA which can be virtually non-existant during winter months, while CA winters are still warm and allows for bass to be active.

not to mention the two states have way different ways of managing bass in their state. WA tries to control the population and reduce effects to our prized native species while SoCal regions highly prize bass as a game fish, though Nor Cal has steelhead and salmon, they just aren't as prized as one would see steelhead in WA.

so while WA tries to limit growth of bass by encouraging anglers to keep smaller bass (which are very very common), CA encourages anglers to keep larger bass in order to let the smaller ones grow, etc etc. THis is all just guessing by the way, I have no factual evidence of this

In our state 12"-17" is your core group, alot of bass in the 2-3 pound class that are established and growing quickly the smaller below 12 are just extra mouths to feed. Taking these helps with the size increases.
Our slots are developed to protect fish greater than 17" and to let the core group get bigger, bass enhancement- bigger and
better bass fishing. Cali I dont know, but its based on whats most beneficial to the fishery and what the fishery can support. Numbers and sizes the lake can handle. Remember Cali supports bass of 20 plus pounds- thats one eating "machine"!

I thought the same thing when I moved here from Fl. Any thing 12" and under go's back. I like the rules here in Wa. wish it was that way down home.

who wants to eat an old stinky fatso anyways? the smaller veal bass would be more appealing. If I remember right, some fish size limits are made not only around the ideal breeding stock size, but also in consideration of the fact that 20 year old fish dont taste as good and more meat would be wasted.. IIRC.

I guess I was overthinking it like a math problem. Harvesting the little guys just seemed so weird. Makes sense if you are trying to un-stunt a lake or manage for trout.

Eating older fish is also more hazardous to your health. Over time contaminants build up more and more in the muscle and fatty tissue of fish. Check page 32 of your WDFW regulation.

Hookorcrook -
As mentioned there is a large differences in growth rates between Washington bass and those found further to the South.

Here is Washington on the typically lake its 5 years for a largemouth to reach 12 inches and even on the best lakes it takes 3 years to reach 12 inches. On some of the Washington Lakes (especailly prior to slot limits) most of the largemouth were dying of old age without ever gettting to be a foot long. Contrast that to the situation in say Florida or California where it is not uncommon for fish to reach a foot in length in year or two.

The bottom line it takes different management techinques in different situations to manipulate fish populations that are desireable to the anglers.

Tight lines
Curt