Page 1 of 1

Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:38 pm
by Mossy
Question: Looking at the statewide rules for largemouth and smallmouth bass the first thing it says is no min. size but then it says you can't retain anything over 12" except for one or something to that affect. :scratch: Anyone have a clue what that's supposed to mean?

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:44 pm
by fishaholictaz
You can keep 5 bass 1 over 17" and 4 under 12" .But you can also have 5 under 12" if none over 17".

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:09 pm
by Bscman
The idea behind it is so that the smaller fish are the ones you keep (if you keep any) while the older, larger (and more able/likely to reproduce) are able to stay in the lake and increase or sustain the population.

This is a good practice even when the regs don't say you must...especially in certain lakes, like many high-mountain likes, that can't survive a heavy fishing pressure.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:10 am
by gpc
Its called a slot limit. Its a newer rule for the bass, maybe 5 years state wide. And it is written up kind of weird but easy to get the hang of.

LMB - 12" -17" must be realsed one over 17" and the rest you keep have to be under 12"


With the smallmouth, they say that the state is getting over run with these things and they want them thinned out. I know that there are a few lakes are are being over run with SMB, but not the whole state. Anyway they just cahnged the rule to 10 fish a day with 1 over 14"

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:34 am
by dilbert
gpc wrote: With the smallmouth, they say that the state is getting over run with these things and they want them thinned out. I know that there are a few lakes are are being over run with SMB, but not the whole state. Anyway they just changed the rule to 10 fish a day with 1 over 14"
When was the last time that they increased the limit for anything. Sure shows how the WDFW feels about bass.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:49 am
by gpc
dilbert wrote:
gpc wrote: With the smallmouth, they say that the state is getting over run with these things and they want them thinned out. I know that there are a few lakes are are being over run with SMB, but not the whole state. Anyway they just changed the rule to 10 fish a day with 1 over 14"
When was the last time that they increased the limit for anything. Sure shows how the WDFW feels about bass.

Yeah tell me about it, the only other thing they increased the limit for is walleye, they also lowered the min. size limit not once but 2 times. They sure dont like bass and walleye up here

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:54 am
by fishnislife
gpc wrote:Its called a slot limit. Its a newer rule for the bass, maybe 5 years state wide. And it is written up kind of weird but easy to get the hang of.

LMB - 12" -17" must be realsed one over 17" and the rest you keep have to be under 12"


With the smallmouth, they say that the state is getting over run with these things and they want them thinned out. I know that there are a few lakes are are being over run with SMB, but not the whole state. Anyway they just ca\hanged the rule to 10 fish a day with 1 over 14"
Nicely said gpc. A lot of the rules that are written can be very confusing. I don't know why they don't just lay it out plain and simple.
A slot limit is a great idea. This can help a fishery to have a healthy population of bass. A lot of lakes that are not managed well will have a stunted population of bass, which is a lot of smaller bass sharing all the food. By weeding out some of these smaller fish, more can gain weight because their food source has increased. Put it this way, if you live in a family of 15 how much dinner are you really going to get. Probably a moderate amount. Now, if you are an only child or have few siblings at dinner, you will get a larger helping on your plate.
I actually wish more people would keep a couple of bass here and there. I have seen a lot of lakes that need help.




fishnislife

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:17 am
by bob johansen
The Columbia River still goes by the old bass rules, 5 bass with only 3 over 15 inches.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:04 pm
by dilbert
gpc wrote:
dilbert wrote:
gpc wrote: With the smallmouth, they say that the state is getting over run with these things and they want them thinned out. I know that there are a few lakes are are being over run with SMB, but not the whole state. Anyway they just changed the rule to 10 fish a day with 1 over 14"
When was the last time that they increased the limit for anything. Sure shows how the WDFW feels about bass.

Yeah tell me about it, the only other thing they increased the limit for is walleye, they also lowered the min. size limit not once but 2 times. They sure dont like bass and walleye up here
I was just looking over the regs to see if a 14" smallie fell above or below the cut and it hit me. With the smallmouth and largemouth limits being separated you could now keep 15 bass in one day. 10 smallmouth and 5 largemouth. They really REALLY don't like bass. Oh, and it's worded "only 1 over 14 inches..." (just like you said) so you can keep 10 at 14 inches even.#-o

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:23 pm
by topdawg47
Everyone that has commented on this subject is right. But, I really don't understand why Trout are so loved here in Washington or maybe the Nothwest in general. Obviously, all over the country each state or region has it's popular targeted fish species, but they still like to catch bass, pan fish, etc.. It seems like if they could kill of the Bass population they would do it in WA lakes. The bass keep the waters at a great balance. I don't here people complaing about Muskie and Pike. They eat everything. I just feel there is too much effort in protecting Trout.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:07 pm
by lskiles
topdawg47 wrote:Everyone that has commented on this subject is right. But, I really don't understand why Trout are so loved here in Washington or maybe the Nothwest in general. Obviously, all over the country each state or region has it's popular targeted fish species, but they still like to catch bass, pan fish, etc.. It seems like if they could kill of the Bass population they would do it in WA lakes. The bass keep the waters at a great balance. I don't here people complaing about Muskie and Pike. They eat everything. I just feel there is too much effort in protecting Trout.
I target every specie trout, bass, carp, perch, crappie, etc.

I value each specie, but I think the reason people around these parts have such a protective stance on trout is that they are native. I know not all trout are native and not all natives are trout, but I am a native and I think it is a puzzelment why folks would move here from the mid-west and south and bring the fish with them to invade our waters instead of enjoying the natural fisheries. Well, it is too late for that now, is it not? So I think we should enjoy catching all the species we can...I know I will.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:57 pm
by kevinb
topdawg47 wrote:Everyone that has commented on this subject is right. But, I really don't understand why Trout are so loved here in Washington or maybe the Nothwest in general. Obviously, all over the country each state or region has it's popular targeted fish species, but they still like to catch bass, pan fish, etc.. It seems like if they could kill of the Bass population they would do it in WA lakes. The bass keep the waters at a great balance. I don't here people complaing about Muskie and Pike. They eat everything. I just feel there is too much effort in protecting Trout.
Most think that muskies eat everything,however when tigers are introduced the bass and trout thrive. Muskies will dine on pikeminnows and carp. Thats why we are seeing much more and larger bass out of Mayfield and Tapps. Last week at Curlew I saw tons of smaller lmb's that hang out with the tigers for protection against pikeminnows.
Silver is another great example,tons of bass and very large.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:34 pm
by topdawg47
True comments, correct me if I'm wrong. But, half the Trout in Lakes around here are planters and Not Native. Now, Native Trout I can understand. I caught some not to long ago in Oregon. They taste better and fight better in my opinion. But, these Triploids and stockers, come on now...

KevinB- Now I do hate when I catch a Pike Minnow out of Lake Washington or where ever I'm fishing. What are you actually supposed to do when caught? Release them... I know some people leave them out to die becuase they prey on all the eggs of salmon, trout, etc...

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:22 pm
by Shad_Eating_Grin
topdawg47 wrote:True comments, correct me if I'm wrong. But, half the Trout in Lakes around here are planters and Not Native. Now, Native Trout I can understand. I caught some not to long ago in Oregon. They taste better and fight better in my opinion. But, these Triploids and stockers, come on now...

KevinB- Now I do hate when I catch a Pike Minnow out of Lake Washington or where ever I'm fishing. What are you actually supposed to do when caught? Release them... I know some people leave them out to die becuase they prey on all the eggs of salmon, trout, etc...
and pike minnow are native fish

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:39 pm
by kevinb
There are some places you can take them and cash them in. I'm not sure how it works but there's a spot on the Columbia that does this.

RE:Fishing Reg Question

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:43 pm
by Logan80
I think one of the main reasons trout are so popular, is that they are fairly easy to catch. Any person can go troll in a circle for a couple hours with a worm and a flasher and catch fish.

People like things easy.